Re-introducing debt-equity ratio control for foreign-invested enterprises?

Earlier this month (December 2012), the Prime Minister issued Directive 32 to various ministries to instruct the ministries to remove obstacles to increase investment efficiency.  The Prime Minister instructed the State Bank to focus on developing a mechanism to monitor the total amount of domestic and foreign loans in comparison with the total investment capital of foreign direct investment projects. It seems that the Prime Minister now wants to re-introduce debt-equity ratio control for foreign-invested enterprises. Before 2006, under the old Foreign Investment Law, a foreign invested enterprise’s owner equity must be at least 30% of the total investment capital of a project.

Vietnam Business Law Blog

The State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) officially issued Circular 38/2026/TT-NHNN dated 31 July 2026 on foreign exchange management for foreign investment activities in Vietnam (Circular 38/2026). Effective from 18 August 2026, Circular 38/2026 replaces Circular 06/2019/TT-NHNN (Circular 06/2019) as amended by Circular 03/2025/TT-NHNN (Circular 03/2025), which has governed the direct investment capital account (DICA) regime since 2019. Circular 38/2026 also terminates Articles 11.3 and 11.4 of Circular 03/2025 on opening and use of VND-denominated accounts for conducting foreign indirect investment in Vietnam and amends Circular 16/2014/TT-NHNN on the use of foreign currency and Vietnamese dong accounts of residents and non-residents.

A typical share sale agreement (SPA) takes effect on signing. Closing, when the buyer and the seller exchange money and title to the shares, usually comes later, once conditions have been met. One might expect tax on the sale to be imposed when the shares are sold, that is, at closing. But where a foreign enterprise with no permanent establishment (Foreign Seller) in Vietnam sells shares in an unlisted Vietnamese company to a resident buyer, Article 5.2(a) of Circular 20/2026 provides that revenue is taxed when the initial capital-transfer contract takes effect. On the face of that Article, the SPA can be that contract, and signing can be when it takes effect. The fact that closing has not yet occurred might not, by itself, defer the tax. Until Circular 20/2026, that was not so.

Similar to the Enterprise Law 2005 and the Enterprise Law 2014, the Enterprise Law 2020 is silent on whether founding shareholders may hold voting preference shares newly issued after the issuance date of the enterprise registration certificate (ERC), and only provides at Article 116.1 that the voting preference of founding shareholders is effective for three years from that date. This blog will examine different views on this issue.

On the one hand, one may support the view that founding shareholders are entitled to hold voting preference shares issued after ERC issuance date because:

Based on Resolution No. 206/2025/QH15 of the National Assembly on special mechanisms to address difficulties and obstacles arising from legal regulations, the Government has issued several Resolutions on administrative procedure reduction (such as Resolution 66.16/2026/NQ-CP, Resolution 66.18/2026/NQ-CP, etc.). Most of these provisions remain effective until 28 February 2027. If new provisions covering the same subject matter are promulgated to replace them during this period, the relevant provisions of these Resolutions will automatically cease to be effective.

On 16 March 2026, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) issued the draft decree on administrative sanctions in the fields of cybersecurity and personal data protection (the Draft Decree) for public consultation. It is the first step to put concrete penalties behind the PDPL 2025, which took effect on 1 January 2026 but left the enforcement details to the Government. The Draft covers a wide range of sectors, such as cybersecurity, personal data, AI, telecommunications, and digital signatures. This post focuses on the personal data provisions (Articles 57 to 69 of the Draft Decree), which raise potential concerns for businesses.

65% or 51% simple majority voting?

Under the Enterprise Law, the quorum for a meeting of the Shareholders Meeting is met when the number of shareholders present in person and by proxy represents at least 65% of all voting shares. A decision of the Shareholders Meeting on matters which are not a super majority issue can only be passed if it is approved by a number of shareholders holding more than 65% of the number of shares entitled to vote.

Resolution 71 approving Vietnam’s accession to the WTO (Resolution 71)  provides that “[A] shareholding company is entitled to provide in its charter … the number of members [of the company] required for holding a shareholder meeting [and] … the majority vote necessary (including 51% majority) in order to pass decisions … of the shareholder meeting”.

Foreign investment in service sectors not included in the WTO Commitments

F

oreign investors interested in service sectors in Vietnam will first need to look at the commitments of Vietnam to the WTO on various sectors (WTO Commitments). If the relevant service falls into one of the service sectors committed in the WTO Commitments then the investors will more or less have an answer. If the relevant service does not fall into one of the service sectors committed in the WTO Commitments (Non-committed Services) then one would need to look at the relevant domestic laws to see if the market is open to foreign investors. Usually, if there is no express restriction on a Non-committed Services under domestic laws then a foreign investor should be able to invest in such sector. This position is reflected in Decree 108/2006 implementing the Investment Law.

Role of Joint venture agreements

The documentation for a joint venture company in Vietnam must at least include a joint venture agreement and a joint venture charter. If there is difference between the joint venture charter and the joint venture agreement, then one needs to decide which document will take precedent. Usually, in such case, the joint venture parties tend to favour the joint venture agreement for two reasons. First, the joint venture agreement is usually regarded as a private agreement between the joint venture parties and therefore needs to be respected. Second, before 2005, under the old Foreign Investment Law, a joint venture agreement has a clear legal status and would take precedent over a joint venture charter