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

August 31, 2020

Myanmar’s 2020 Insolvency Law

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

Myanmar’s new Insolvency Law (IL) came into effect on February 14, 2020, replacing the Yangon Insolvency Act 1909 and the Myanmar Insolvency Act 1920. The long-awaited replacement law was soon followed by the Insolvency Rules, issued by the Supreme Court of the Union on April 28, 2020.

The IL covers all aspects of insolvency-related matters in Myanmar, including insolvency procedures for natural persons and corporate entities; corporate rescue and rehabilitation plans; micro, small, and medium-scale enterprise (MSME) insolvency; company liquidation proceedings; and cross-border insolvency.

Insolvency Procedure

In proceedings against a natural debtor, a creditor may choose between either serving a bankruptcy notice to the debtor or proceeding directly with the court. The bankruptcy notice must use Form-13 prescribed by the Insolvency Rules, requiring a natural debtor to pay a debt to the satisfaction of the creditor within 21 days. If the payment is not made by the deadline, the creditor can file a petition with the court, along with proof that a bankruptcy notice has been served.   

If a creditor chooses to forgo serving the bankruptcy notice and instead proceed directly with court action, section 248 of the IL provides that a creditor’s petition may only be presented to the court when a natural debtor meets the following criteria for personal insolvency:

  • The amount of debt (or aggregate of debts) is at least MMK 1,000,000 (approx. USD 733);
  • The debt is for a liquidated sum payable to a petitioning creditor either immediately or at a certain point in the future;
  • The debt is unsecured, unless the provision of “creditor with security” applies;
  • The debtor is unable to pay the debt or appears to have no reasonable prospect of being able to pay; and
  • There is no outstanding application to set aside a bankruptcy notice served by other creditors regarding the debt.    

For corporate insolvency, a company is presumed insolvent if:

  • a creditor owed at least MMK 1,000,000 (approx. USD 733) has served the company with a written demand using Form-9 prescribed in the Insolvency Rules by leaving it at the company’s registered office and, within 21 days, the company has not paid, secured, or compounded the debt to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor; or
  • a creditor submits to the court that a court execution or other process issued in favor of the creditor has not been satisfied in whole or in part.

After this presumption of insolvency has been made, an application to the court for the winding up of the company based on insolvency can be presented by a company director or by a creditor. The court will then decide to appoint a liquidator and proceed with considering the company’s outstanding debts.

A bankruptcy petition for either personal or corporate insolvency may be presented by one creditor or joint creditors. In its assessment of the matter, the court will also consider whether the debtor is domiciled in Myanmar or is personally present in Myanmar when the petition is presented; or has been ordinarily resident in Myanmar, has had a place of residence in Myanmar, or has carried on business in Myanmar at any time in the preceding three years.

Corporate Rescue and Rehabilitation    

Corporate rescue and rehabilitation proceedings are prescribed in part V of the IL, with the initial aim of rescuing the distressed company. If a rescue cannot be achieved, the next priority is to ensure that as much of the company’s business as possible continues in existence. If this in turn is not viable, the goal then becomes to obtain a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up.   

The application for a rehabilitation order can be made by the company itself, the liquidator of the company, one or more directors of the company, or one or more creditors of the company (including secured creditors), or a combination of these persons.    

The rehabilitation proceedings can be divided into two stages: a rescue stage, during which rehabilitation options are explored and a decision is made by creditors; and a plan stage, where the company’s creditors resolve to approve a rehabilitation plan and its implementation.   

Once the application for rehabilitation has been approved by the court, a rehabilitation manager will be appointed to manage the affairs and assets of the company during the rescue stage while investigating options for achieving the rescue and rehabilitation objectives. The creditors may also appoint a creditors’ committee to consult with the rehabilitation manager. In addition, a meeting of creditors of the company must be convened by the rehabilitation manager within 30 days of his or her appointment so that the creditors can consider the rehabilitation plan proposed by the reha- bilitation manager. If the creditors approve it, a plan supervisor will be appointed at the plan stage to implement the rehabilitation plan as efficiently as is reasonably practicable.

MSME Insolvency

Section 2 of the IL defines an MSME as an incorporated or unincorporated enterprise or business, but does not provide any specific criteria. The Myanmar Companies Law 2017, in comparison, defines a “small company” as having annual revenue of less than MMK 50,000,000 (approx. USD 36,600) or having no more than 30 employees. The Small and Medium Enterprises Development Law further defines SMEs along specific criteria varying by industry.

Incorporated and unincorporated MSMEs with business debts totaling no more than MMK 10,000,000 (approx. USD 7,340) or MMK 1,000,000 (approx. USD 733), respectively, are eligible to apply for MSME rehabilitation as prescribed in part VI of the IL. Similar to company rehabilitation proceedings, MSME rehabilitation consists of the rescue stage and the plan stage.

If the MSME is able to continue business operations during the MSME rescue stage, a rehabilitation advisor will be appointed to advise and assist MSMEs in exploring options for its rehabilitation plan. A rehabilitation plan must be prepared by the MSME or a rehabilitation advisor (with the MSME’s consent) and sent to all creditors. The rehabilitation advisor will summon the creditors to a meeting, and they must accept or reject the proposed plan within 21 days of being notified. Upon approval of the rehabilitation plan, a plan supervisor will be appointed for its implementation.

Company Liquidation Proceedings

Part VII of the IL provides company liquidation proceedings that are to be enforced with all liquidated companies in Myanmar. Previously, liquidation could only proceed in accordance with the Myanmar Companies Law 2017; now, it will proceed in accordance with the IL, with the relevant statutory requirements expected to be announced soon by the Directorate of Investment and Company Administration.

Cross-Border Insolvency

The IL embraces the principle of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law to promote recognition of foreign proceedings in local courts. According to part X of the IL, the Model Law has force in Myanmar as if it referred to the IL itself—in other words, the Model Law applies to the extent that it is consistent with the IL. Section 381 of the IL also affirms that the claims of foreign creditors must not be ranked lower than the unsecured claims of other creditors solely because the creditor concerned is a foreign party.

Conclusion

Replacing century-old legislation, the IL is another notable and significant step on Myanmar’s ongoing journey of legislative modernization. This welcome development indicates a positive and improving legal environment for companies operating in Myanmar or considering expanding into the jurisdiction. Moreover, it provides guidance for companies about what could be in store should they face hard times—a real concern given current global developments—and confirms that distressed businesses in the jurisdiction will be able to rely on up-to-date legal instruments.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 31, 2026
Thailand has introduced a new regulatory framework that may expose foreign nationals who violate the Foreign Business Act (FBA) to deportation. The Regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on Deportation B.E. 2569 was published in the Government Gazette on August 27, 2026. The regulation establishes an administrative process for referring foreign nationals for deportation where this is deemed necessary in the interests of public order or public morality. It does not create new substantive deportation powers, but it expressly identifies unlawful business conduct under the FBA—including nominee arrangements—as grounds for referral. Grounds for Deportation Referral The regulation sets out five grounds that may give rise to a referral to the relevant authorities: Unlawful entry into, or unlawful stay in, Thailand in violation of immigration laws. Unlawful employment or engagement in work in violation of laws governing the employment of foreign nationals. Carrying on business in violation of the FBA, including through the use of nominee arrangements. Forging official documents or using forged official documents. Committing an offense punishable by imprisonment of five years or more. The framework takes a broad approach, extending not only to the perpetrators of these acts but also to those who facilitate, instigate, or otherwise support such acts. Deportation Risk Following a Criminal Judgment Where a foreign national has committed any of the above offenses and has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a final judgment, the interior minister has the power to order deportation. This power also applies where a court has issued a final judgment sentencing a foreign national to imprisonment but has suspended the execution of the sentence, or has imposed a fine. A deportation order may also specify a period during which the foreign national is prohibited from reentering Thailand. FBA Noncompliance: Broader Consequences Noncompliance with the FBA—including
Read More
August 24, 2026
Myanmar’s Directorate of Investment and Company Administration (DICA) has published the guidelines it uses to assess and approve company names for registration in the country. The guidelines, which were published on May 18, 2026, explain how DICA determines whether a proposed name is identical or too similar to an existing name, and they identify words and expressions that may be prohibited or restricted. Businesses planning to incorporate in Myanmar should expect DICA to scrutinize proposed names more closely than it has in the past. Prohibitions on Company Names The Myanmar Companies Law prohibits company names that are identical or similar to existing company names, and DICA’s internal assessment guidelines explain how this rule applies in practice. Under the guidelines, DICA may reject a proposed company name if the proposed name: Is identical or nearly identical to an existing company name; Differs from an existing company name only in punctuation, capitalization, spelling, or transliteration; Only adds words such as “Group,” “Holding,” “International,” “Myanmar,” or “Family” to an existing company name; Merely rearranges the words in an existing company name; Is pronounced similarly to an existing name; Uses the same brand name as an existing company, even if the company carries out different business activities; or Uses an existing brand name together with an abbreviation of that brand name or a shortened form of the name or business description. DICA may also consider whether a proposed name could give the impression that two companies are related, even if they operate in different business sectors. In addition, DICA may review a company name even after registration. If it later determines that the name does not comply with the Myanmar Companies Law or is otherwise unsuitable, DICA may direct the company to change its name under section 26 of the Myanmar Companies Law.
Read More
August 24, 2026
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
Read More
August 20, 2026
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
Read More