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 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
Read More
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign
Read More