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​ 

December 12, 2025
Cross-border disputes often end with a judgment or arbitral award issued outside Thailand. When a party has assets or operations in Thailand, the key question becomes simple: will a Thai court enforce it? Thai law treats foreign court judgments and foreign arbitral awards very differently. Foreign court judgments cannot be recognized or enforced directly and must effectively be re-litigated. Foreign arbitral awards, however, benefit from a clear recognition and enforcement process under the New York Convention and Thailand’s Arbitration Act. Thailand’s Overall Approach Thailand does not have a general law or treaty that allows automatic enforcement of foreign court judgments. To rely on a foreign judgment, a party must initiate a new lawsuit in a Thai court, plead the claim under Thai law, and prove the case again. The foreign judgment can be used as evidence, but it is not binding, and the Thai court retains full discretion to reassess both the facts and the law. Foreign arbitral awards are treated more favorably. Thailand is a longstanding member of the New York Convention and has implemented it through the Arbitration Act. The act provides a straightforward process for asking a Thai court to recognize and enforce a qualifying award, without retrying the dispute, and subject only to limited refusal grounds. Foreign Court Judgments: Persuasive but Not Binding Although Thai courts do not recognize or enforce foreign court judgments, they may rely on them as persuasive evidence under certain conditions. Courts generally give more weight to judgments that are final on the merits, issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, and reached after proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. Default judgments or rulings based primarily on procedural grounds carry less weight, and the ultimate relevance and weight are left to the court’s discretion. In practical
Read More
December 5, 2025
One morning, a California-based company mapping its Southeast Asia rollout opened an unexpected cease-and-desist letter from a Vietnamese IP firm. To the company’s surprise, the letter asserted that a local client already owned the company’s brand in Vietnam and threatened legal action. This is not an isolated incident. In another recent matter in the sports industry, a squatter demanded at least USD 48,000 from our client to “resolve” a similar conflict. For brands entering Vietnam or expanding distribution there, these tactics can create acute risk at precisely the point at which market momentum is building. Vietnam’s rapid economic growth and deepening integration into global trade have made it an increasingly attractive destination for multinational brands. Those same dynamics have intensified a longstanding issue: trademark squatting. Vietnam has modernized its IP framework over the past decade, but its strict first-to-file trademark system continues to incentivize opportunistic filings by parties with no legitimate interest in a mark. As more foreign brands build their reputation abroad before turning to Vietnam, squatters remain alert to timing gaps and enforcement frictions. The First-to-File System: Advantages and Vulnerabilities Vietnam adheres closely to the first-to-file principle under its Law on Intellectual Property. In practice, exclusive trademark rights belong to whoever submits the earliest valid application to the Vietnam Intellectual Property Office, regardless of prior use in Vietnam. This approach offers administrative clarity and reduces evidentiary burdens compared to use-based jurisdictions. Yet it also creates fertile conditions for squatting. Bad-faith actors regularly monitor foreign markets, identify brands gaining traction, and move quickly to register those marks domestically, often long before the genuine owner enters the market or prioritizes local filings. By the time the true brand seeks protection, the squatter’s application (or registration) stands as a legal obstacle, pushing businesses toward costly oppositions, cancellations, or uncomfortable negotiations
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand has expanded the circumstances under which state agencies may bypass competitive bidding procedures to address urgent security challenges. On November 28, 2025, Thailand’s Ministry of Finance published the Ministerial Regulation Determining Cases of Procurement by Specific Method (No. 6) B.E. 2568 in the Royal Gazette, introducing a new pathway for procuring supplies and services needed to address cyber and military threats that may affect the stability of government agencies or the nation. For technology vendors, cybersecurity firms, and defense contractors, this regulatory change creates immediate opportunities to engage directly with government buyers facing urgent security challenges. New Fast-Track Category for Security Threats The regulation amends Thailand’s Public Procurement and Supplies Management Act B.E. 2560 (2017) to add a new category of procurement that qualifies for the “specific method”—a noncompetitive, direct selection process. Previously, agencies could use this expedited method only in limited circumstances, such as emergencies, cases with proprietary technology requirements, or national security operations. The new provision explicitly covers procurement of supplies related to preventing or resolving cyber or military threats that could impact the stability of a state agency or the country. This addition recognizes the urgent nature of modern security challenges, where competitive bidding timelines may leave agencies vulnerable during critical threat windows. State agencies dealing with active cyberattacks, preparing defensive measures against anticipated threats, or responding to military security concerns can now move directly to negotiate with qualified vendors rather than conducting lengthy public tender processes. Vendor Considerations Vendors offering cybersecurity solutions now have a regulatory avenue to work directly with government clients when stability concerns are present. These solutions include threat detection systems, anti-ransomware tools, incident response services, firewalls, and security consulting. Similarly, defense contractors providing military equipment or specialized security supplies can pursue direct engagement channels where traditional procurement methods would create
Read More
December 4, 2025
Thailand’s Department of Business Development (DBD), through its Office of Central Company and Partnership Registration, has released multiple draft orders for public consultation until December 12, 2025. These draft orders aim to strengthen the business registration process, with a focus on the requirements for establishing and amending the principal office address of a partnership or limited company, verification of authorized signatories, and measures to identify and prevent registrations involving persons linked to suspicious or high-risk activities. The draft orders’ proposed requirements are outlined below. Principal Office Verification The principal office address of a partnership or limited company, including house registration code, house number, full address details, and building name, must be fully aligned with the civil registry. The registrar will strictly verify this before accepting any registration or amendment. If the address used for registration is already registered for at least five other companies, the company must submit a consent letter from the person authorized to allow use of the principal office, along with supporting documents proving the right to use the address. Signatory Certification Compliance Duties Persons certifying directors’ signatures on registration forms are responsible for verifying their identities, maintaining up-to-date information, and complying with the requirements of the DBD’s Biz Regist digital registration system. Certain supporting documents proving the qualifications of certifying persons are also required, with some exceptions for specific professional roles. Identity and qualification verification must be renewed upon the completion of one year from the date of registration as a certifying person, or if the certification credentials expire before the one-year period ends, in accordance with the verification requirements. Verification of Suspicious Parties Any partner, shareholder, or director linked to a predicate offense will be required to meet with the registrar in person for further verification steps. For all parties related to a company
Read More