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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
May 25, 2026
Thailand published new rules on May 1, 2026, establishing clear procedures for how the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) handles digital assets seized during criminal and money laundering investigations. Taking effect the following day, the Regulation of the Anti-Money Laundering Board on the Custody and Management of Seized or Frozen Assets (No. 3) B.E. 2569 applies to digital asset businesses, cryptocurrency holders, and anyone subject to asset seizure under Thailand’s anti-money laundering laws. For the first time, authorities now have a detailed roadmap for transferring seized digital property from private or foreign control into secure state custody. Digital asset businesses holding customer assets under investigation must be prepared to comply with these rules compelling repatriation of such assets in enforcement actions. Expanded Definition of Digital Assets The regulation defines digital assets to include not only those covered by Thailand’s existing digital asset business law but also any other property that can be stored using the same methods as digital assets. This broad formulation means the custody rules will apply to emerging blockchain-based assets and tokenized property that may not yet fall within the statutory definition of a digital asset business, giving authorities flexibility as the technology evolves. Mandatory Transfer to Domestic Custody When digital assets are held with service providers outside Thailand, AMLO will first attempt to transfer them to an account the office maintains with a licensed domestic digital asset business operator. If the domestic operator does not support that particular asset, the office will instead move the assets to its own cold wallet (offline, internet-isolated storage system). If neither option is feasible, the seizing official will report the situation to the Anti-Money Laundering Committee for alternative instructions. A similar hierarchy governs assets held in an accused party’s private wallet or by any third party that is not a
April 29, 2026
Is arbitration only as good as the arbitrator? Undoubtedly. Choosing an arbitrator is therefore one of the most pivotal decisions a party makes in the arbitration proceedings. In practice in Vietnam, many arbitration proceedings have been significantly prolonged because of multiple unsuccessful appointments arising from conflicts of interest, challenges by the opposing party, or subsequent unavailability. In other cases, additional expenses were incurred where appointed arbitrators were located far from the hearing venue or were unfamiliar with the arbitration language or applicable law. To preempt these issues and secure a more efficient and cost-effective appointment, this article proposes a practical, step-by-step approach to arbitrator selection. Step 1: Know Your Own Case At the outset, it is essential to develop a clear understanding of the dispute by addressing the following key considerations: Nature of the dispute: From which sector does it arise (e.g., construction, international trade, investment, banking and finance, technology, intellectual property)? Value and complexity: Is the dispute high or low in value? Does it involve multiple parties, multiple legal systems, or foreign elements? Is its crux related to multiple legal matters? Existing arbitration agreement: Does the agreement specify the seat, language, and governing law? If not, what would be appropriate considering the parties’ conduct and the applicable arbitration rules? Having clear answers to these questions in mind will help identify, from the outset, the core criteria for selecting an appropriate arbitrator. Step 2: Form Your Candidate Pool Based on the understanding developed in Step 1, a candidate pool should be formed through a structured and careful process: Researching Arbitrator Profiles At the initial stage, comprehensive research should be conducted via reliable sources to ensure both accuracy and diversity of candidates. Official sources, such as lists of arbitrators published by arbitral institutions, most notably the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre