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 20, 2026

Vietnam’s New Bankruptcy Law Sets Clear Rules for Pending Arbitrations

Subscribe to Updates

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 to annulment for want of jurisdiction.

Scope of the Suspension: Bankruptcy, Not Rehabilitation

This mechanism only targets disputes concerning a debtor’s financial obligations, not every proceeding in which the debtor is a party. However, Vietnamese law does not precisely define what is classified as a “financial obligation” for this purpose, leaving room for case-by-case argument on the margins. It also applies only within bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings, not to Vietnam’s separate rehabilitation process. Because rehabilitation is a phase subject to creditor votes only after a court has accepted a bankruptcy petition, an arbitration that was suspended before rehabilitation was proposed will typically remain suspended through rehabilitation. Rehabilitation itself does not independently trigger this statutory effect. The law also draws no distinction between an arbitration already pending when a petition is accepted and one commenced later. Further, it makes no difference whether the debtor is a claimant or respondent.

Effect on the Underlying Arbitration Agreement

Under article 51, the insolvency court has the power to suspend or terminate the performance of a contract signed before the bankruptcy filing, where continuing would harm the debtor, regardless of whether that contract contains an arbitration clause. This raises an important question: does terminating a contract terminate the arbitration agreement within that contract? Vietnamese law answers no. The principle of separability under article 19 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration keeps the arbitration agreement independent of the underlying contract, and termination of that contract is not among the grounds on which an arbitration agreement can be invalidated under article 18. Nor can the insolvency administrator or insolvency court suspend or terminate the arbitration agreement itself, but only the contract’s performance. In short, a suspended or terminated contract does not by itself void the parties’ agreement to arbitrate future or related disputes, even though any arbitration already in progress may still be swept up by articles 40(2) and 59(2) if it concerns financial obligations.

Foreign-Seated Arbitration and Enforcement

The new law does not address whether articles 40(2) and 59(2) apply only to Vietnam-seated arbitrations or also reach foreign-seated arbitrations. In principle, a tribunal seated abroad is governed by the law of its own seat, not by Vietnamese insolvency legislation. However, that does not settle the issue. If a foreign award is rendered against a Vietnamese entity while that entity is undergoing a court-supervised bankruptcy process, Vietnamese courts may refuse to recognize or enforce the award on public policy grounds or as inconsistent with the mandatory principles of the Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation. The practical effect is that a foreign-seated tribunal can proceed with the arbitration, but the resulting award may have questionable value in Vietnam. In addition, Vietnam has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, so there is no formal channel for a foreign insolvency representative to seek recognition or relief in Vietnam.

Practical Considerations

A handful of related points round out the picture. Interim measures remain available in principle under article 49 of the Law on Commercial Arbitration even after a bankruptcy filing, but that power is overridden in practice once article 40(2) or 59(2) requires suspension or termination. The debtor’s legal name and its capacity to participate are unaffected by a bankruptcy filing, and Vietnamese law does not clearly allocate authority between the debtor and the insolvency administrator to settle a dispute or to represent the debtor in arbitration. Confidentiality is likewise unaffected since bankruptcy proceedings create no exception to the ordinarily private nature of arbitral hearings under the Law on Commercial Arbitration.

Because the statutory mechanism is still new, having taken effect only in the past year, there is no body of case law yet interpreting how broadly “disputes concerning financial obligations” will be read. Parties currently in arbitration with a Vietnamese counterparty, or drafting arbitration clauses for contracts likely to be performed in Vietnam, should treat this as an evolving rather than a settled area of legal interpretation.

Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

January 26, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed an updated Cambodia chapter to Foreign Investment Review 2026, a global guide to the legal and regulatory environment for foreign investment in 25 jurisdictions around the world. Published and distributed by Lexology Panoramic, the guide is focused on law and policy regarding foreign investment oversight, regulatory frameworks, procedural requirements, and other notable concerns for foreign investors. The updated Cambodia chapter was prepared by Jay Cohen, partner and director of Tilleke & Gibbins’ Phnom Penh office, and Nitikar Nith, associate. The chapter focuses most closely on the law and policy section, which explains the government’s policies and practices regarding foreign direct investment, the main investment laws and their scope, and the relevant authorities responsible for regulating mergers, acquisitions, and other business transactions. The chapter also brings up key recent developments, such as the prospect of Cambodia establishing a competition regulator. A PDF of the Cambodia chapter can be downloaded through the button below. Tilleke & Gibbins also provided the Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam chapters to Foreign Investment Review 2026. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Foreign Investment Review 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
January 26, 2026
Myanmar’s Private Security Services Law, enacted on February 18, 2025, together with its implementing Directive on Applications for a Private Security Services License or Permit issued on June 18, 2025, establishes the country’s first comprehensive regulatory framework for both commercial private security service providers and companies that employ in-house security personnel. The framework applies to both Myanmar and foreign entities. For foreign investors and multinational operators, the new regime introduces strict licensing requirements, local content rules, and various approvals that must be carefully considered as part of business planning and compliance processes. Regulatory Authority and Structure The governing authority under the Private Security Services Law is the Private Security Services Central Supervisory Committee, formed with the minister of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) as chairperson, the chief of the Myanmar Police Force as vice-chairperson, and members from other high-ranking officials from relevant ministries, such as Transport and Communications, Defense, Planning and Finance, Investment and Foreign Economic Relations, Legal Affairs, Immigration and Population, Labor, and Commerce. This Central Committee is the highest regulatory authority and has the power to adopt policies, approve or reject applications for licenses and permits, and decide appeals against administrative actions taken by Supervisory Committees, which operate under the Central Committee at the state and regional level. They are responsible for processing applications, verifying compliance with statutory requirements, submitting applications to the Central Committee with remarks, and issuing licenses and permits once approved. Supervisory Committees also monitor compliance by license or permit holders and impose administrative penalties for noncompliance, while the Central Committee exercises final decision-making authority. License Requirements for Security Service Providers To apply for a private security services license, companies must be registered under the Myanmar Companies Law. Foreign companies may also operate a private security services business in Myanmar, subject to compliance
Read More
January 21, 2026
Spurred by global geopolitics and Canada’s Indo-Pacific Strategy, which aims to forge deeper ties with ASEAN, Canadian companies have been showing growing interest in Thailand and Southeast Asia in recent years. To understand the opportunities offered by the region, we sat down with Andrew Stoutley, a Toronto native and the chief operating officer of Tilleke & Gibbins, a leading Southeast Asian regional law firm with over 130 years of history in Thailand. Q: Why are Canadian companies looking at Thailand and Southeast Asia right now? A: Two reasons stand out. First, diversification has moved up the agenda. Many Canadian companies want options outside North America due to tariff volatility and policy uncertainty in the United States, as well as questions around the next Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement mandatory joint review. At the same time, the shift of global production from China to Southeast Asia is accelerating, driven by rising costs, geopolitics, and the need to avoid overreliance on a single market. As a result, Canadian companies are looking for a second production base or a regional hub, and Thailand and its neighbors are natural choices given their manufacturing depth, location, and established supply chains. Second, Canada’s own efforts in the region are gaining traction. The Indo-Pacific Strategy has led to more on-the-ground support, including larger trade missions, upgraded diplomatic posts, and new financing options. Export Development Canada (EDC) now has a presence in Bangkok, giving Canadian companies a direct line to financing and insurance in Thailand. There’s also steady progress on trade frameworks like the recently signed Canada–Indonesia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (which will come into effect pending domestic procedures), ongoing negotiations of a Canada–ASEAN FTA, and the exciting announcement about the launch of negotiations of a Canada–Thailand FTA. Together, these developments have the potential to make it much easier
Read More
January 20, 2026
Arbitrations seated in Thailand are governed principally by the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) and, where applicable, the rules of institutions such as the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) and the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI). While these instruments set the core procedural structure, they are not comprehensive. To fill in these procedural gaps, arbitral tribunals often look to the Thai Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and apply its principles when the Arbitration Act or institutional rules are silent. This hybrid system is familiar to local practitioners but can surprise international parties who expect a more self-contained arbitral procedure. Examples of How CPC Principles Are Applied Evidence Management: Section 25 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of the parties and guarantees each side a full opportunity to present its case. At the same time, it grants tribunals broad discretion to conduct proceedings “as it deems appropriate” and expressly suggests that arbitrators may apply the CPC evidence rules where appropriate. In practice, tribunals frequently apply CPC evidence rules when addressing: submission of evidence lists, late or additional evidence, questions of admissibility and relevance, and assessment of witness and expert testimony. Amendments to Pleadings: Because the Arbitration Act and institutional rules provide limited guidance on amending pleadings, tribunals often rely on CPC principles when parties seek to amend a statement of claim or defense. Amendments may be permitted if they are sought in a timely manner, do not unfairly prejudice the opposing party, do not cause undue delay, and do not alter the nature of the dispute. These conditions closely mirror the standards applied by Thai courts under the CPC. Subpoenas and Court Assistance: Arbitral tribunals seated in Thailand generally do not have inherent subpoena powers. Section 33 of the Arbitration Act fills this gap by permitting the tribunal, an individual arbitrator, or a
Read More