Supreme court orders hearing

Under the Supreme Court’s order, the Central Bankruptcy Court will have to open the case, which goes back to 2010. Prachai and his associates seek compensation of Bt190 billion plus interest over actions introduced in recent years to reduce TPI’s debt burden.
Prachai brought the case to the Supreme Court early this year, with four other plaintiffs: Pramual Leophairatana, Prateep Leophairatana, Leophairatana Enterprise Co Ltd and TPI. His case names eight defendants: Effective Planners Co Ltd, National Advisory Co Ltd, Bangkok Bank, International Finance Corp, Export-Import Bank of the United States, America National Association Bank, Citibank and Germany’s reconstruction credit institute KfW.
TPI witnessed a massive increase in debt following the baht devaluation in 1997 and it later fell under creditors’ control. In January 2000, the five creditors filed for an endorsement to rehabilitate TPI, and the Central Bankruptcy Court gave its consent in March of that year. Prachai claimed that Effective Planners, established to handle the rehabilitation, and the other defendants colluded to have him sidelined as a dishonest and illegal planner. Effective Planners then assumed full rights to rehabilitate TPI.
Prachai also claims the rehabilitation process launched by the defendants caused damage to the five plaintiffs. For example, TPI was ordered to reduce its oil refining capacity. The actions also slashed the value of shares held by the first four plaintiffs. Total damage was estimated at Bt190.38 billion.
In his petition to the Central Bankruptcy Court, the eight defendants were alleged to be responsible for the damage. The court turned down the petition, saying that the five plaintiffs were not directly affected by the aforementioned actions.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Prachai, Pramual, Prateep and Leophairatana Enterprise were directly damaged by the actions.