Foreign ownership in Vietnamese securities companies

Vietnam undertakes to the WTO that “after 5 years from the date of accession, securities service suppliers with 100% foreign-invested capital shall be permitted”.  To implement this undertaking, Decree 58/2012 has expressly allowed:

  • any foreign investor to acquire up to 49% interest in a domestic securities company; and
  • foreign investors satisfying certain conditions (including coming from countries which have a cooperation agreement with the SSC) to acquire 100% interest in a domestic securities company.

Decree 58/2012 is silent on whether a foreign investor can acquire more than 49% but less than 100% interest in a domestic securities company. In a recent post on its website, the State Securities Commission has expressly confirmed that a foreign investor cannot acquire more than 49% but less than 100% interest in a domestic securities company.

Vietnam Business Law Blog

In criminal proceedings in Vietnam, civil claims (e.g., claims for compensation, repair of damaged property) often arise alongside criminal charges against criminals. The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 introduces the position of “civil claimants” (nguyên đơn dân sự) and “civil defendants” (bị đơn dân sự) to facilitate the handling of civil claims in Vietnamese criminal proceedings. However, other than creating these positions, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks detailed provisions on how these civil matters should be addressed in criminal proceedings. This legal gap, coupled with inconsistent judicial practices, makes the resolution of civil claims within criminal cases particularly complex and problematic. This post will explore the key challenges in resolving civil claims during criminal proceedings.

  • No clear procedures - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters in criminal cases are to be resolved during the adjudication of the criminal case. However, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides no further instructions on the procedure for resolving civil claims within criminal proceedings. It remains unclear what procedural rules apply—whether the criminal court should follow its own process or adopt the procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Code 2015 to settle a civil claim during criminal proceedings. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent judicial practices and procedural confusion.

  • Scope of civil claims - Article 64.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 defines a civil defendant as “an individual, agency, or organization that, as prescribed by law, is responsible for compensating for damages”. It appears from the definition of civil defendant that a civil claim during criminal proceedings only relates to the issue of compensation for damages. It is not clear whether other issues such as ownership of assets or return of illegal property could be covered in a civil claim during criminal proceedings. In addition, the court may also designate the person making or subjecting to a claim on civil issues which are not claim for damages to another position (e.g., person with related rights and obligations) during the proceedings.

Decree 125 of the Government dated 5 October 2024 (Decree 125/2024) introduces updated regulations for the education sector, including a requirement that a license must be obtained for establishing "other centres performing continuing education tasks" (trung tâm khác thực hiện nhiệm vụ giáo dục thường xuyên in Vietnamese and in the rest of this article, Other Continuing Education Centres). Crucially, the education law fails to clearly define these centres, creating significant ambiguity for education service providers, particularly those centres teaching K-12 subjects (e.g., math, literature).

First, the Education Law 2019 and Decree 125/2024 lack an explicit definition of Other Continuing Education Centres. Interpreting relevant provisions of the Education Law 2019, it appears that Other Continuing Education Centres are centres providing:

Following the issuance of the Law on Electricity 2024, Vietnam's Government has swiftly replaced its initial framework for Direct Power Purchase Agreements (DPPAs) under Decree 80/2024 by issuing Decree 57/2025 on 3 March 2025. Coming into effect immediately, Decree 57/2025 repeals Decree 80/2024, which had only been active since 3 July 2024. Decree 57/2025 largely maintains the two DPPA models introduced by Decree 80/2024  (1) via private line (Private DPPA) and (2) via the national grid (Grid-Connected DPPA), but introduces important changes impacting eligibility, pricing, and contractual details. Key changes include:

  • Flexible customer eligibility - Decree 57/2025 links customer eligibility (for initial participation and ongoing qualification) to a minimum consumption threshold (Minimum Take Amount) defined in the Wholesale Electricity Market Operation Regulations issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT). Decree 80/2024 instead used a fixed threshold (average ≥200,000 kWh/month). Accordingly, eligibility for participating in either DPPA model now depends on potentially dynamic wholesale market rules rather than a static figure, requiring ongoing monitoring of MOIT's regulations.

  • Stricter customer eligibility – A Large Customer in a DPPA arrangement which has been implemented for 12 months must ensure that in a calendar year, it has purchased from EVN the Minimum Take Amount for the 12 month periods ending on 31 October of the previous calendar year. Under Decree 80/2024, there is no requirement that the Minimum Take Amount must be purchased from EVN. It is not clear if this requirement will apply to a Private DPPA under which the customer purchases directly from the RE Generator.

Article 9 of the Investment Law 2020 provides for three kinds of business for foreign investors:

  • market-access-prohibited business lines (ngành, nghề chưa được tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Prohibited Businesses);

  • business lines with conditional market access (ngành, nghề tiếp cận thị trường có điều kiện in Vietnamese) (Conditional Businesses); and

  • business lines which are not Conditional Businesses and Prohibited Businesses and are subject to the same market access treatment as domestic investors (Unrestricted Businesses).

However, Decree 31/2021 introduces another category of business lines being "business lines without market access commitment" (ngành, nghề Việt Nam chưa cam kết về tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Uncommitted Business). It is unclear what the relationship between the Uncommitted Business and the Conditional Business under the Investment Law 2020 is.

Under Article 24.2 of the Investment Law 2020, offshore investors who intend to acquire equity in Vietnam-based companies must meet the land regulations on “conditions for receiving land use right” (LUR). However, the land law does not specify any conditions applicable to the offshore investors given that they are not a regulated land user.

Article 28.1(d) of the Land Law 2024 and its guiding provision, Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 only permit foreign-invested entities (FIEs), which can be established by offshore investors, to receive a transfer of equity being value of land use right originating from land allocation with land use fee payment or land lease with one-time rental payment to the State. Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 suggests that "equity being value of land use right " (vốn đầu tư là giá trị quyền sử dụng đất) (LUR Equity) is the equity in a company's charter capital created by contributing land use rights.

These provisions seem vague and can be interpreted differently, leading to varying conclusions.

Factors affecting an acquisition of companies in Vietnam

Any acquisition will have its own details and structures. That being said, a foreign investor intending to do deal in Vietnam should take into account the following factors, among other things:

Corporate form of the target company

A target company in Vietnam may be:

  1. a limited liability company (LLC) (công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn) incorporated under the Enterprise Law. A LLC may be a single-member LLC (One Member LLC), which is owned by a single member, or a two or more members LLC (Multiple Member LLC), which is owned by two or more members; or
  2. a joint stock company (JSC) (công ty cổ phần) incorporated under the Enterprise Law. A JSC can be a public JSC (which usually has 100 or more shareholders) or a private JSC. A public JSC may also be a “listed company” (công ty niêm yết) if the shares of the relevant company is listed on a stock exchange.

The corporate form of the target company may affect a transaction significantly. For example, a foreign investor may not be able to acquire more than 49% of a public JSC while it can acquire 100% of a LLC doing the same business. The selling shareholders in a public JSC can be subject to substantially lower capital gain tax than the selling shareholders in a private JSC.

Nature of the existing owner(s) of the target company:

A target company in Vietnam may be owned and controlled by:

  1. local private investors, in which case the target company is considered as a domestic company. Investing in a domestic company may or may not require an Investment Certificate;   
  2. foreign investor, in which case the target company is considered as a foreign invested enterprise. A foreign invested company incorporated on or after 1 July 2006 should operate either as a LLC or JSC under the Enterprise Law. However, a foreign invested company which was incorporated before 1 July 2006 and has not re-registered as a LLC under the Enterprise Law will operate in a legal vacuum and be subject to many uncertainties. Investing in a foreign invested company is usually subject to an Investment Certificate; or
  3. Vietnamese Government, in which case the target company is considered as a State-owned enterprise. Investing in a State-owned enterprise may be subject to separate rules on equitisation (or privatisation) of State-owned enterprises.

Nature of the business of the target company

Depending on the business of the target company, there may be specific restrictions on foreign investment or other special requirements applicable to the proposed acquisition or the target company.

Vietnam Business Law Blog

In criminal proceedings in Vietnam, civil claims (e.g., claims for compensation, repair of damaged property) often arise alongside criminal charges against criminals. The Criminal Procedure Code 2015 introduces the position of “civil claimants” (nguyên đơn dân sự) and “civil defendants” (bị đơn dân sự) to facilitate the handling of civil claims in Vietnamese criminal proceedings. However, other than creating these positions, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 lacks detailed provisions on how these civil matters should be addressed in criminal proceedings. This legal gap, coupled with inconsistent judicial practices, makes the resolution of civil claims within criminal cases particularly complex and problematic. This post will explore the key challenges in resolving civil claims during criminal proceedings.

  • No clear procedures - Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides that civil matters in criminal cases are to be resolved during the adjudication of the criminal case. However, the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 provides no further instructions on the procedure for resolving civil claims within criminal proceedings. It remains unclear what procedural rules apply—whether the criminal court should follow its own process or adopt the procedures set out in the Civil Procedure Code 2015 to settle a civil claim during criminal proceedings. This uncertainty can lead to inconsistent judicial practices and procedural confusion.

  • Scope of civil claims - Article 64.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015 defines a civil defendant as “an individual, agency, or organization that, as prescribed by law, is responsible for compensating for damages”. It appears from the definition of civil defendant that a civil claim during criminal proceedings only relates to the issue of compensation for damages. It is not clear whether other issues such as ownership of assets or return of illegal property could be covered in a civil claim during criminal proceedings. In addition, the court may also designate the person making or subjecting to a claim on civil issues which are not claim for damages to another position (e.g., person with related rights and obligations) during the proceedings.

Decree 125 of the Government dated 5 October 2024 (Decree 125/2024) introduces updated regulations for the education sector, including a requirement that a license must be obtained for establishing "other centres performing continuing education tasks" (trung tâm khác thực hiện nhiệm vụ giáo dục thường xuyên in Vietnamese and in the rest of this article, Other Continuing Education Centres). Crucially, the education law fails to clearly define these centres, creating significant ambiguity for education service providers, particularly those centres teaching K-12 subjects (e.g., math, literature).

First, the Education Law 2019 and Decree 125/2024 lack an explicit definition of Other Continuing Education Centres. Interpreting relevant provisions of the Education Law 2019, it appears that Other Continuing Education Centres are centres providing:

Following the issuance of the Law on Electricity 2024, Vietnam's Government has swiftly replaced its initial framework for Direct Power Purchase Agreements (DPPAs) under Decree 80/2024 by issuing Decree 57/2025 on 3 March 2025. Coming into effect immediately, Decree 57/2025 repeals Decree 80/2024, which had only been active since 3 July 2024. Decree 57/2025 largely maintains the two DPPA models introduced by Decree 80/2024  (1) via private line (Private DPPA) and (2) via the national grid (Grid-Connected DPPA), but introduces important changes impacting eligibility, pricing, and contractual details. Key changes include:

  • Flexible customer eligibility - Decree 57/2025 links customer eligibility (for initial participation and ongoing qualification) to a minimum consumption threshold (Minimum Take Amount) defined in the Wholesale Electricity Market Operation Regulations issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT). Decree 80/2024 instead used a fixed threshold (average ≥200,000 kWh/month). Accordingly, eligibility for participating in either DPPA model now depends on potentially dynamic wholesale market rules rather than a static figure, requiring ongoing monitoring of MOIT's regulations.

  • Stricter customer eligibility – A Large Customer in a DPPA arrangement which has been implemented for 12 months must ensure that in a calendar year, it has purchased from EVN the Minimum Take Amount for the 12 month periods ending on 31 October of the previous calendar year. Under Decree 80/2024, there is no requirement that the Minimum Take Amount must be purchased from EVN. It is not clear if this requirement will apply to a Private DPPA under which the customer purchases directly from the RE Generator.

Article 9 of the Investment Law 2020 provides for three kinds of business for foreign investors:

  • market-access-prohibited business lines (ngành, nghề chưa được tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Prohibited Businesses);

  • business lines with conditional market access (ngành, nghề tiếp cận thị trường có điều kiện in Vietnamese) (Conditional Businesses); and

  • business lines which are not Conditional Businesses and Prohibited Businesses and are subject to the same market access treatment as domestic investors (Unrestricted Businesses).

However, Decree 31/2021 introduces another category of business lines being "business lines without market access commitment" (ngành, nghề Việt Nam chưa cam kết về tiếp cận thị trường in Vietnamese) (Uncommitted Business). It is unclear what the relationship between the Uncommitted Business and the Conditional Business under the Investment Law 2020 is.

Under Article 24.2 of the Investment Law 2020, offshore investors who intend to acquire equity in Vietnam-based companies must meet the land regulations on “conditions for receiving land use right” (LUR). However, the land law does not specify any conditions applicable to the offshore investors given that they are not a regulated land user.

Article 28.1(d) of the Land Law 2024 and its guiding provision, Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 only permit foreign-invested entities (FIEs), which can be established by offshore investors, to receive a transfer of equity being value of land use right originating from land allocation with land use fee payment or land lease with one-time rental payment to the State. Article 9.1 of Decree 102/2024 suggests that "equity being value of land use right " (vốn đầu tư là giá trị quyền sử dụng đất) (LUR Equity) is the equity in a company's charter capital created by contributing land use rights.

These provisions seem vague and can be interpreted differently, leading to varying conclusions.

Foreign ownership limit in a public-turned-private shareholding company.


Under the new Decree 58/2012, a company, which ceases to be a public company, will still be subject to the restrictions applicable to a public company for a period of one year after the date on which it is no longer a public company. This effectively means that a public-turned-private shareholding company is still subject to the 49% foreign ownership limit applicable to public companies for a period of one year after ceasing being a public company.

However, the restriction under the new Decree 58/2012 does not apply if the relevant company is turned private due to “consolidation, merger, bankruptcy, dissolution, change of form of enterprise or acquisition by another entity”. Among these exceptions, the “change of form of an enterprise” seems to be easier to implement. Under the Enterprise Law, a shareholding company can change its corporate form by turning it into a limited liability company. However, this will likely require the public shareholding company to reduce its number of shareholders from more than 100 to 50 or less. 

Certain Limitations on Privately Issued Shares



Under the controversial Decree 1/2010,  a private placement of shares in a private shareholding company was subject to various restrictions under Decree 1/2010, including:
  • shares privately issued were subject to a lock-up period of 1 year;
  • there had to be a six-month gap between two tranches of a private placement; and
  • the proceeds resulting from the sale of shares had to be kept in an escrow account.


Decree 58/2012 of the Government dated 20 July 2012 implementing the Securities Law has repealed Decree 1/2010 and therefore has removed these restrictions. However, except in certain limited circumstances, private placement of shares by a public shareholding company is still subject to the first two restrictions, which are provided in the amended Securities Law rather than in Decree 1/2010.