Both brinkmanship and gradual concessions are associated with delay in sovereign debt restructuring. A two-sided incomplete information bargaining model in continuous time is developed to establish the conditions under which brinkmanship or, alternatively, gradual concessions, emerge as equilibrium bargaining strategies. Violation of good faith is leads to brinkmanship and coordination failure; requiring good faith leads to gradual concessions and lower expected delay. An elementary calibration quantifies the impact of the two bargaining scenarios. The policy implication is that a sovereign bankruptcy procedure must incorporate both good faith and transparency as together (and not, on their own) they reduce inefficient delay