Validity Of Creditors’ Meeting Resolution In Bankruptcy Proceedings
Article 2. Mr. Daeng executed a contract for the sale of land belonging to him. Mr. Daeng was sued in a bankruptcy case and the court declared a receivership over his assets definitive. The receiver and the debtor conducted a collection of the debtor’s assets and submitted a contract between Mr. Daeng and Mr. Khao. Mr. Khao filed a petition to challenge the actions taken by the receiver, alleging that he lacked the right to file such a petition. He sought conciliation with the receiver at the meeting of creditors, where he was duly notified, but it appeared that only ten creditors attended. The creditors who attended voted to accept the conciliatory request. The following day, the receiver filed a petition with the court requesting the court to annul the aforementioned conciliation. The aforementioned resolution, citing that the claims violated the law because creditors attended, was upheld. Mr. Khao’s claim that the receiver acted improperly, resulting in the annulment of the contract, was considered. The resolution of the creditors’ meeting was valid or not.
According to the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (2001), as amended by the Bankruptcy Act (No. 5) B.E. 2542, Section 27, receivership must file a petition to the court to annul contracts resulting from fraud, undue influence, or the debtor receiving inadequate compensation. The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483, Section 36, states that if the receiver believes that the decision of the creditors’ meeting is contrary to the law, the receiver may file a petition and the court may prohibit the implementation of the resolution, provided that the petition is filed within seven days of the resolution. Therefore, the receiver’s filing of the petition the following day was permissible.
According to the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483, Section 145(5), the receiver may act only when obtaining an opinion regarding the case. There was no evidence of the establishment of a creditors’ committee. However, Section 41 of the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 states that if a creditors’ committee is not established, the receiver may request the approval of the creditors’ meeting. In this case, it was evident that the receiver had obtained approval from the creditors’ meeting, and the law did not specify the minimum number of creditors required to conduct a meeting. The fact that only two creditors attended the meeting did not violate the law. Therefore, the petition filed by the receiver was deemed unfounded.
Subsequently, Mr. Ka received a construction contract.