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​ 

June 22, 2026
Arbitrator independence and impartiality form the cornerstone of a legitimate arbitral process. Under section 19 of the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), prospective arbitrators must disclose circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, and existing arbitrators must do so throughout proceedings. This mirrors article 12 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Yet despite this clear mandate, practical implementation varies significantly across Thailand’s arbitration landscape. Background Thailand’s two principal arbitration institutions, the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), both maintain procedures for addressing arbitrator challenges and require compliance with the statutory disclosure obligation. Under both sets of rules, any party wishing to challenge an arbitrator must submit a challenge application within fifteen days of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and a committee is appointed to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. The TAI additionally prescribes its Code of Ethics and Conduct for Arbitrators to further emphasize the expectation of impartiality and transparency. However, Thailand’s arbitration ecosystem extends well beyond the TAI and THAC. Several sector-specific institutions also administer arbitral proceedings, including the Thai Commercial Arbitration Office under the Board of Trade of Thailand, the Arbitration Centre of the Office of the Insurance Commission, the Arbitration Centre of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office for the Prevention and Resolution of Disputes regarding Intellectual Property, and the Arbitration Centre of the Thai General Insurance Association. These institutions each operate under their own procedural rules, which were developed to serve particular industries and dispute profiles. The procedural mechanisms for securing and documenting an independence declaration are not uniformly established across these forums. Consequences of Procedural Inconsistency This creates a notable gap. Not all arbitration bodies have a formalized procedure requiring written independence statements before proceedings commence. Some tribunals proceed
Read More
June 16, 2026
The president of Thailand’s Supreme Court has issued new recommendations providing courts with criminal jurisdiction with a comprehensive framework for identifying and dismissing criminal cases brought in bad faith. Published in the Government Gazette on May 29, 2026, after being signed on May 25, the Recommendations of the President of the Supreme Court Concerning Bad-Faith Litigation in Criminal Cases B.E. 2569 were issued under Section 5 of the Act on the Organization of Courts of Justice. The recommendations took effect upon publication and represent a significant step in Thailand’s efforts to curb abusive criminal litigation, including strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP). Background Section 161/1 of Thailand’s Criminal Procedure Code empowers courts to dismiss criminal cases filed dishonestly or with the intent to harass or take unfair advantage of a defendant. The new recommendations provide detailed guidance that courts previously lacked on identifying and handling such prosecutions. Definition of Bad-Faith Litigation Under recommendation 1, filing a criminal case in bad faith is defined broadly to encompass three categories: Harassment-type filings involving intimidation, threats, or creating unreasonable hardship for the defendant; Coercive filings designed to pressure the defendant into acting or refraining from acting for illegitimate benefit; and False or misleading filings that deliberately assert incorrect material facts or conceal such facts. Circumstances Indicating Bad Faith Recommendation 2 sets out specific circumstances that should raise a court’s suspicion that a filing may violate section 161/1. These include: Filing in a distant court far from the defendant’s domicile without benefiting the adjudication; Retaliation against the defendant’s advocacy for human rights, environmental protection, consumer rights, labor rights, or other public interests—effectively establishing an express anti-SLAPP framework; Retaliation against whistleblowers who disclosed corruption or unlawful conduct; Retaliation against individuals responsible for investigating the plaintiff’s wrongdoing or who concluded such an investigation; Filing multiple
Read More
June 10, 2026
For multinational franchisors operating in Thailand, a key risk after franchise termination is that former outlets may continue operating in ways that could easily mislead consumers into believing they remain within the authorized network. To justify such operations, former franchisees often argue that the termination was invalid or ineffective. As a result, these cases are often treated as contractual disputes, making it difficult for franchisors to obtain injunctive relief before a final judgment confirms that the termination was lawful. Franchisors face significant commercial and reputational harm during lengthy proceedings, including consumer confusion, disruption to franchise restructuring, and damage to brand reputation and customer trust. In an encouraging development, the Thai court in a 2025 case responded to the problem of unauthorized post-termination franchise operations by granting interim relief, recognizing broader brand and consumer harm, and awarding substantial damages, highlighting a successful litigation strategy of framing the dispute not merely as a contractual termination issue but as trademark infringement causing ongoing commercial injury. The Subway Case From December 2024 to mid-2025, an unauthorized “Subway®” franchise operation in Thailand attracted substantial public and media attention. Reports and online discussions about unauthorized Subway® stores circulated widely after complaints arose about food quality and customer experience at certain outlets that were allegedly operating after their franchise rights had expired. Because these stores continued to use Subway® trademarks, trade dress, and overall commercial appearance, many consumers were unable to distinguish them from authorized operations, resulting in reputational risks and customer confusion that affected the franchisor’s brand and franchise system in Thailand. Subway treated this matter with the utmost seriousness and moved promptly to protect its brand, franchise system, and customers. It filed a civil action with the IP&IT Court seeking a permanent injunction and damages. During the proceedings, the court granted a preliminary injunction
Read More
June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More