New Rehabilitation Regulations: Survival Tools for SMEs

November 11, 2016

New Rehabilitation Regulations: Survival Tools for SMEs

Bangkok Post, Corporate Counsellor Column

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have grown rapidly in Thailand over the past ten years, creating millions of jobs and contributing to the Kingdom’s steady economic growth. According to the 2015 annual report of the Office of SMEs Promotion (OSMEP), there were approximately 2.7 million SMEs at the end of 2015, employing around 10 million people, particularly in the tourism, construction, and wholesale sectors.

This has prompted the government to issue numerous privileges that encourage entrepreneurs to start up their own businesses, such as special rates for loans and tax breaks. The latest privilege, issued under the Bankruptcy Act (No. 9) B.E. 2559 (2016) on May 24, 2016, offers SMEs the opportunity to rehabilitate and avoid bankruptcy in the face of short-term liquidity problems. This privilege is designed to protect popular SMEs which experience temporary liquidity problems and are unable to make repayments in the short-term.

Unlike previous rehabilitation regulations, which only allowed debtors of more than THB 10 million to file a request for reorganization to the court, the new Bankruptcy Act provides SMEs with the opportunity to enter rehabilitation if there are reasonable grounds and prospects for rehabilitating the business. This may prevent such SMEs from being declared bankrupt.

Requirements for Rehabilitation

The new Bankruptcy Act allows an SME to enter into the rehabilitation process regardless of whether it is a natural person, juristic body, partnership, or private limited company, provided that the SME is registered with OSMEP or another related government agency, in accordance with the SMEs Promotion Act B.E. 2543 (2000).

The new Bankruptcy Act lowers the minimum threshold of debt that an SME which is in no position to repay the debt must meet in order to be eligible to enter into the rehabilitation process. The thresholds vary, depending on the type of SME. Natural persons are required to have a definite amount of debt amounting to not less than THB 2 million. Juristic bodies, registered or unregistered ordinary partnerships, or limited liability partnerships must have a definite amount of debt of not less than THB 3 million. And private limited companies must have a definite amount of debt of not less than THB 3 million, but not more than THB 10 million.

Key Differences in the Rehabilitation Process for SMEs

Under the normal rehabilitation process, a plan preparer is appointed by the court to draft a rehabilitation plan. This plan must be approved by the creditor(s) and the court, and all of these processes will take place once the petition for rehabilitation has been accepted by the court. In contrast, for an SME to apply for rehabilitation, the SME or its creditor(s) must file a petition to rehabilitate to the Central Bankruptcy Court, together with a rehabilitation plan. This plan must be approved by the creditor(s) of at least two-thirds of the total amount of debt.

This presents some challenges to SMEs that want to enter into the rehabilitation process, as they need to organize the creditor meeting and persuade the majority of creditors to accept the plan, in order to complete the rehabilitation petition and submit the petition to the court. In contrast, under the normal rehabilitation process, the official receiver handles these processes by sending an official notice to every creditor, inviting them to attend the official creditor meeting.

For the rehabilitation of an SME, after the rehabilitation petition has been submitted to the court, a plan preparer is not appointed, and the plan cannot be amended, unlike the normal rehabilitation process. Thereafter, the court has sole discretion as to whether to accept the petition.

Automatic Stays

Much like the normal rehabilitation process, under the rehabilitation process for SMEs, an automatic stay would be applicable starting from the date the court accepts the SME rehabilitation petition until:

the expiration of the period of time stipulated under the rehabilitation plan;
the date the plan is successfully accomplished;
the date that the court dismissed the petition, disposed of the case, or repealed the order for the business rehabilitation; or
the business rehabilitation has been canceled.

As with automatic stays under the normal rehabilitation process, automatic stays under rehabilitation for SMEs prevent creditors from claiming or seizing the SME’s assets, and they also halt all ongoing seizures and auctioning of the SME’s assets.

Under the new Bankruptcy Act, the government is effectively offering entrepreneurs protection in the form of a safety net that allows them to survive temporary liquidity problems. Many business operators are expected to take advantage of this, and as a result, SMEs should continue to play an important part in Thailand’s economic growth.

Download Full Article

Related Professionals

Theerapat Sombatsatapornkul

Attorney-at-Law

Thailand

+66 2056 5555

Email

RELATED INSIGHTS

November 27, 2024

Anatomy of a Business Rehabilitation Plan in Thailand

In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary

November 15, 2024

Changes to Domain Name Dispute Resolution Under Vietnam’s New Internet Decree

Vietnam’s new Decree No. 147/2024/ND-CP on the management, provision, and use of internet services and online information (“Decree 147”), which will come into effect on December 25, 2024, replacing Decree No. 72/2013/ND-CP (“Decree 72”), introduces several changes to the regime for domain name dispute resolution. The new decree aims to clarify the legal framework and address some longstanding inconsistencies between Vietnam’s laws on intellectual property and information technology. The main changes related to domain name dispute resolution under Decree 147 are summarized below. Removal of Prescriptive Actions Decree 147 no longer lists specific actions for resolving domain name disputes. Decree 72 had outlined three methods: negotiation/mediation, arbitration, and court. However, IP practitioners had long criticized this approach, arguing it conflicted with the IP Law, which additionally allows administrative action. By omitting these methods, the new decree implies an acceptance of administrative action as provided in the IP Law. However, Decree 147 remains silent on establishing a dispute resolution forum aligned with the CPTPP’s requirement for a UDRP-like model. Currently, Vietnam’s available forums do not fully conform to the UDRP framework. An anticipated circular may provide further guidance on this aspect. Deactivation of Domain Names Decree 72 does not have any provision on the deactivation of a domain name. However, Decree 147 has stipulated some situations where domain names will be deactivated, such as when there is a request from an authority, or when it is discovered that incorrect information was used for registration. Clearer Criteria for Dispute Resolution Article 16 of Decree 147 sets out three clear criteria that must be met for domain name dispute resolution to proceed: (i) confusing similarity with the plaintiff’s trademark, trade name, or personal name; (ii) the defendant’s lack of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name; and (iii) bad faith. Previously,

November 11, 2024

Vietnam’s Digital Hub Aspirations Will Open Opportunities for Investors

The Vietnamese government has demonstrated a strong commitment to building a digital government, digital economy, and digital society through its recently issued national strategy on digital infrastructure. Under Decision No. 1132/QD-TTg dated October 19, 2024, on “Digital Infrastructure Strategy to 2025 with Orientation to 2030,” the government will create supportive conditions for both domestic and international businesses to invest in digital infrastructure with cybersecurity as a priority. Recognized as vital to the economy, this digital infrastructure will consist of four main components: (i) telecommunications and internet infrastructure, (ii) data infrastructure, (iii) physical-digital infrastructure, and (iv) digital utility infrastructure, including digital technology as a service. Key goals for 2025 include universal fiber optic access for households, 100% 5G coverage across all provinces and cities, deployment of at least two new international undersea fiber optic cables, establishment of AI data centers, development of green-standard data centers, and platforms for IoT, AI, big data, blockchain, and cybersecurity. By 2030, goals include fiber access with speeds of at least 1 Gbps, 5G coverage for 99% of the population, readiness for 6G trials, six additional international undersea fiber optic cables, development of a hyperscale data center, and positioning Vietnam as a digital hub. To achieve these goals, the government has outlined some core tasks, creating significant opportunities for both foreign and domestic investors: Developing telecommunications and internet infrastructure for widespread fiber optic and 5G access, while preparing for emerging technologies like 6G, Open RAN, satellite, and IpV6. Telecommunication enterprises will jointly invest in and share the use of international fiber optic cable routes to ensure efficient capacity utilization and optimize investment capital. Attracting foreign and domestic investment to establish hyperscale data centers and cloud computing services that meet global standards. Creating physical-digital infrastructure by integrating technology across key sectors such as transportation, energy, healthcare,

October 21, 2024

Thai Court Decision Moves Design Assessment Closer to International Standards

Thailand’s Central Intellectual Property and International Trade (IP&IT) Court has delivered a favorable ruling for Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd., a major player in the tire manufacturing industry, regarding the registration of its motorcycle tire design patent. In this case, Tilleke & Gibbins represented Sumitomo in successfully advocating for recognition of the unique design elements in the company’s motorcycle tire products. Case Overview The case revolved around Sumitomo’s two design patent applications for motorcycle tire designs, which were initially rejected by the Department of Intellectual Property (DIP) on the grounds that they were similar to prior art. Based on an examination of the design elements, primarily focusing on the tire tread patterns, the DIP’s Patent Board had concluded that Sumitomo’s designs were not sufficiently unique to warrant patent protection, as the tread patterns of the new designs were deemed too similar to one found in prior art for tire products. In response, Tilleke & Gibbins filed a complaint with the IP&IT Court on behalf of Sumitomo, seeking a revocation of the Patent Board’s decision and requesting that the court compel the DIP, as the defendant, to proceed with the registration of Sumitomo’s design patents. The complaint emphasized that the designs were novel and distinct, warranting patent protection under Thai law. Legal Strategy The firm’s legal argument focused on the interpretation of Thai patent law, particularly regarding the protection of a product’s external appearance, and emphasized that the determination of a design’s novelty must consider the product’s overall appearance rather than isolating individual features. This approach is consistent with international guidelines on design patents, which require the evaluation of novelty and distinctiveness based on how an informed user would perceive the design as a whole. While Sumitomo’s tire tread patterns may share some superficial similarities to existing designs, the overall impression

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

Industries

Practices

November 11, 2016