Creditor Meeting Rights and Bankruptcy Court Orders
In one bankruptcy case, twenty creditor claims were made by the debtor. The debtor did not request a debt compromise, and at the first creditor meeting, nine creditors attended. One creditor challenged another creditor, asserting that they lacked the right to vote due to not being within the specified timeframe and further noting that the meeting could not be held in full. The Official Receiver ordered the continuation of the meeting, stating that the challenged creditor had properly notified the parties and requested a meeting, and that the Official Receiver s order was proper, provided that the Official Receiver requested the court to declare the debtor bankrupt. However, the meeting decided not to make such a request. When the challenged creditor raised their objection to voting, the Official Receiver had the power to authorize them to vote. The objecting creditor could appeal the order to the court, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483, Section 35. If a meeting lacked a quorum of creditors, and creditor notification had been sent, any number of creditors attending could proceed with the meeting. At the first creditor meeting, if the debtor did not request a debt compromise, the meeting must vote to request the court to declare the debtor bankrupt, pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483. If the meeting did not vote to declare the debtor bankrupt, it was considered a vote contrary to the law, pursuant to Section 31. The Official Receiver must uphold the request for the court to issue an order prohibiting the debtor from operating, starting from the date of the vote, and the court would have the power to declare the debtor bankrupt pursuant to Section 61. Ms. Somsida sued Mr. Samay for bankruptcy. The court issued a protective order against him. Mr. Samay was declared bankrupt and the court issued a protective order and notified the Official Receiver. Three days later, the Official Receiver went to Mr. Samay s house and seized a gold necklace and a religious amulet valued at approximately 10,000 baht, which Mr. Samay was wearing, and a car valued at approximately 500,000 baht, which was located near Mr. Samay s house, believing it to be a car that Mr. Samay had entrusted to Ms. Sonsong. Ms. Sonsong contested the seizure, claiming she had transferred the vehicle to Mr. Samay, having borrowed 300,000 baht from him. The request to revoke the seizure was made. Approximately two months before the bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, the Official Receiver also seized a plot of land that Mr. Samay had sold to Ms. Sonsong prior to the bankruptcy proceedings. The land was also seized by the Department of Land and Surveyors. As a result, the Official Receiver s actions were proper. The Office of the Public Prosecutor filed a lawsuit against Mr. Prasert as a defendant before the Provincial Court.