Is “business transfer” a “share transfer”, “project transfer” or “assets transfer”?

A business transfer can generally understood as the transfer of, among other things, the assets, employees, contracts, clients and goodwill associated with a particular business. However, “business transfer” is not clear legal concept under Vietnamese law. In Vietnam, when one mentions "business transfer", it is not clear whether it refers to the transfer of (1) shares of the company that runs such business or (2) the assets and other components that constitute such business.

In case of (1), then a business transfer should probably better called as a share transfer transaction. In case of (2), commercially, a business transfer could be structured as the transfer of an “investment project” (see earlier post here) as provided under Article 66 of Decree 108/2006. However, there is no clear procedures under Decree 108 for a "project transfer" transaction which does not involve the transfer of shares of the project company. In particular,

• Article 66.2 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of a project of an economic organization not associated with the termination of operation of the assigning economic organization, the assignment of the project will comply with the conditions and procedures for assignment of capital;
• Article 66.3 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of a project of an economic organization associated with the termination of operation of the assigning economic organization, the assignment of the project shall comply with the conditions and procedures for merger with or acquisition of an enterprise;
• Article 66.4 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of an investment project associated with the termination of operation of the assigning organization and the assignee establishing an economic organization to continue implementation of the project, the investment procedures stipulated by this Decree must be carried out.

A “project transfer”, which is not a share transfer, is not associated with the termination of the assigning organization so Articles 66.3 and 66.4 of Decree 108 are not applicable. However, Article 66.2 of Decree 108 requires a transfer of project not associated with the termination of the assigning organization to follow procedures for assignment of capital. It is not clear how a project transfer by way of selling assets could comply with the procedures for assignment of capital.

As such, in case of (2), to avoid all the complications of a project transfer regulations, the parties can just structure a business transfer as a transfer of assets and other components of the transferred business.

Pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders over new shares issued by a joint stock company

It has never been clear whether an existing shareholder of a joint stock company (JSC) has pre-emptive rights over new shares issued by the JSC. However, in the past, under Decision 12/2007 of the Ministry of Finance on corporate governance rules applicable to public listed JSCs, “shareholders may refuse to exercise their priority right to purchase new shares. This right of refusal shall be clearly stated in the relevant resolution of the  general meeting of shareholders.” Many legal practitioners have relied on this provision of Decision 12/2007 to take the view that in case a public listed company issues new shares to a strategic investor by way of private placement,

• a collective waiver of pre-emptive rights recorded in the Shareholder resolutions of the target company approving the transaction is sufficient; and
• there is no need for the target company to collect individual waiver from each individual shareholder regarding their potential pre-emptive over the new shares to be issued to the strategic investor.

This view was particularly helpful to parties who want to expedite the deal process.

Decision 12/2007 has now been repealed by Decision 121/2012, which does not contain the provision on collective waiver of pre-emptive rights. On the contrary, Decision 121/2012 just basically repeats the provision in the Enterprise Law, which serves as the basis for pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders. While the model charter attached to Decision 121/2012 still contains a provision similar to the provision under Decision 12/2007, the legal arguments for not obtaining individual waiver from each individual shareholder regarding their potential pre-emptive over the new shares to be issued to the strategic investor have clearly become weaker.

Foreign investors purchasing assets of a Vietnamese company

Purchasing existing assets of a Vietnamese company may be an option for a foreign investor who wants to overcome the foreign ownership limit applicable to a public company or wants to avoid (or cheery pick) the liabilities associated with the target company. However, there are certain issues associated with an asset deal:

• Usually, the foreign investor cannot directly own assets especially land use rights and buildings in Vietnam. Accordingly, the foreign investor would need to set up its own subsidiary in Vietnam (Buyer Sub) to acquire the target assets from the Vietnamese seller. And the asset transfer agreement needs to be entered into between the Vietnamese seller and the Buyer Sub. However, from the seller’s perspective, the Buyer Sub is not a company of substance at least until the Buyer Sub’s capital is fully paid up and as such the foreign investor may need to act as a party to the asset purchase agreement and to be liable for the Buyer Sub’s performance;
• There is a risk that the foreign investor cannot set up the Buyer Sub as this may involve a discretionary investment evaluation process by the licensing authority. So even if the foreign buyer and the Vietnamese seller have agreed to a definitive agreement, the agreement cannot be completed until the Buyer Sub is set up. This is a risk that both the Buyer Sub and a target company have to consider when negotiating an asset deal;
• An asset purchase agreement between the Buyer Sub and a target company being a contract between two companies in Vietnam is likely to be subject to Vietnamese governing law. In addition, it is more likely than not that land use right and buildings are part of the target assets. In such case, the asset purchase agreement (or at least the part relating to land use right and buildings) may be subject to jurisdiction of the Vietnamese courts;
• An asset purchase agreement between the Buyer Sub and a Vietnamese seller being a contract between two companies in Vietnam will need to be settled in Vietnamese Dong under the foreign exchange regulations. As such, it may be difficult for the Vietnamese seller to fix the transfer price in US$;
• If the transferred assets include assets the ownership of which is subject to registration such as trademarks, buildings and land use rights then the parties may need to enter into separate transfer instruments for the purpose of filing with the relevant authorities. Transfer instruments relating to real estate in Vietnam must usually be notarized. As such there is a risk that there is inconsistency between the notarized transfer instrument and the asset transfer agreement which are not notarised;
• The transferred assets might involve numerous contracts and require third party’s consents. The Civil Code requires the transfer of rights to demand to be notified to the obligors. In addition, transfer of receivables will need to be registered with the National Department of Registration of Security Interests. The Civil Code requires the transfer of obligations to be consented by the obligee. Therefore, if the target company has substantial external debts and has granted security interest over its assets, it may be difficult to obtain consents from the target company’s lenders for the transfer of assets unless simultaneous or escrowed closing can be arranged to ensure that the lenders will be repaid.

Vietnam investment regulations – Direct investment v.s. indirect investment

Under the Investment Law, direct investment means a form of investment whereby the investor invests its invested capital and participates in the management of the investment activity. On the other hand, indirect investment means a form of investment through the purchase of shares, share certificates, other valuable papers or a securities investment fund and through other intermediary financial institutions and whereby the investor does not participate directly in the management of the investment activity.

The confusing point here is what “participating in the management” of investment activity. If having purchased shares of a listed company in Vietnam, a foreign investor attends the shareholders meeting of such company and exercises its voting rights then arguably the investor has “participated in the management” of the company in Vietnam. A more relevant example is a foreign investor purchases a minority stake in a domestic joint stock company and nominates its personnel to hold position in the Board of Directors of such company. In such case, it is not clear if the investor could be deemed to have “participated in the management” of the company in Vietnam.

The consequences of being treated as a direct investment and an indirect investment may be material. If an investment is an indirect investment then the parties may not need to obtain an Investment Certificate and must settle the transaction in Vietnamese Dong through a VND capital contribution account.  If an investment is a direct investment then the parties may need to obtain an Investment Certificate and could settle the transaction in foreign currency.

It would have been clearer if the Investment Law replaces the concept of “participating in the management” with “control”. In such case, an investor will be deemed to make a direct investment if it has “control” of the investment activity. In other cases, the investor will be deemed to make an indirect investment. 

Vietnam Business Law Blog

Official Letter 13629 of Ministry of Finance: Notable Clarifications and Gaps in Corporate Regulations

about a month ago

On 3 September 2025, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) released the Official Letter no. 13629 addressing questions related to difficulties and obstacles arising from legal regulations in the finance and investment sector. This correspondence has several notable issues that are summarized below. While some of the MOF’s guidance offers welcome flexibility and operational reassurance, others fall short of providing clear or comprehensive clarification, leaving important gaps unresolved and inconsistencies with other legislation unaddressed.

Delegation by the General Meeting of Shareholders endorsed in principle (Query no. 29)

Query/Issue raised:

Current regulations regarding delegation/authorisation (both could be translated to/from "uỷ quyền" in Vietnamese) by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) to the Board are unclear and conflicting. […]

Independent Director Qualification Under The Vietnamese Enterprises Law – A Point Of Ambiguity

about a month ago

A recurring issue in Vietnam corporate governance is whether a former member of the Board of Directors can be appointed as an “independent” Board member in the subsequent term, provided that all other statutory criteria are satisfied. This typically arises where companies want to retain a former board member while still complying with independence requirements under Article 155.2 of the Enterprises Law 2020 as amended in 2025 (Enterprises Law 2020).

Under Article 155.2(dd) of Enterprises Law 2020, an independent Board member must “not hold the position of member of the Board of the company within the last 05 years or longer unless he/she was designated in 02 consecutive terms.”

Unclear Risk Allocation for Latent Defects under Vietnamese Law

about a month ago

Vietnamese law currently lacks a formal definition of “latent defect” (khiếm khuyết ẩn) and a clear mechanism for allocating liability once such defects arise. This regulatory vacuum often leads to prolonged disputes between the Employer and the Contractor, particularly when the construction contracts do not include explicit risk allocation.

For the purpose of our discussion below, a “latent defect” is defined as a fault or flaw in construction works/item that is not discoverable through a reasonably thorough inspection at the time of handover.

Is Metadata Personal Data? New Risks Under Vietnam’s Personal Data Protection Law (PDPL 2025)

about 2 months ago

When companies think about data protection, they usually focus on “visible” data like names, email addresses, or bank details. However, there is a hidden layer called metadata - essentially “data about data” - that often gets ignored.

Under Vietnam’s new personal data protection rules, overlooking metadata is a major risk. If metadata can be used to identify a specific person, it falls under the same strict rules as regular personal data.

What is Metadata? The “Digital Footprint”

Metadata is information that describes the context of a file or a message rather than the content itself. Even if you remove a person’s name from a file, the metadata can still point directly to them.

Land Access Privileges for Investor under Vietnam’s New BT Framework

about 2 months ago

Vietnam is currently at a pivotal stage of infrastructure modernization. To meet the immense demand for capital, the State has moved to revitalize private sector participation, most notably through the “Build – Transfer” (BT) model.

In a typical BT arrangement, a private investor finances and constructs an infrastructure project, then transfers it to the State upon completion. In return, the State “pays” the investor with land funds, allowing them to develop a “reciprocal project” (dự án đối ứng) to recover their capital and generate profit. While this mechanism is essential to stimulate private sector participation, the recent new legal framework for BT projects may raise significant concern regarding the land access privileges granted to BT investors compared to their counterparts in the general real estate market. In particular,

Case Law No. 81/2024 Creates More Confusion Than Clarification

about 2 months ago

The recently issued Case Law No. 81/2024/AL (CL 81) introduces a precedent that allows creditors to bypass the standard statute of limitations by re-characterizing an unpaid contractual debt as a property reclamation claim upon the mutual termination of the contract and an agreement on the payable amount. Below are a few of our observations regarding CL 81.

Summary of the Case

The dispute originated from a service contract between Company M (the Service Provider) and Company A (the Client). After the Service Provider performed its services, the parties mutually agreed to terminate the contract. Subsequently, the Client explicitly confirmed in writing the specific amount of the service fee it owed to the Service Provider and the late payment interest but ultimately failed to make the payment. When the Service Provider filed a lawsuit to recover the unpaid amount, the Client requested the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the 3-year statute of limitations for a contractual dispute had already expired.

Insights From Case Law 78/2025/AL - Distinguishing Contributions For Charter Capital From Business Cooperation

about 2 months ago

For investors in Vietnam, "contributing capital" to a company can mean two very different things: becoming a legal owner (member/shareholder of a company) or simply being a business partner. A recent case law no. 78/2025/AL clarifies this distinction and indicates that several pieces of evidence may be considered to prove company member/shareholder status.

Case Summary

In this dispute, Mr. H, the plaintiff, provided significant funds to D Limited Liability Company, which was managed by his relatives. Although Mr. H received the profit distribution for over a decade and signed minutes acknowledging his contribution, Mr. H was never officially recorded as a member of the company in the enterprise registration certificates (ERC) or the company’s charter.