Licensing procedures for purchasing shares in Vietnamese local companies - IC or BRC or Both

A major difficulty for a lawyer advising a foreign buyer purchasing equity interest in a local Vietnamese company (Local Co) is to determine whether an Investment Certificate (IC) should be obtained for the investment and if so, how the IC should be issued (e.g. to the foreign buyer or to the Local Co and for which project?). By way of background, the key incorporation document recording key corporate details such as name, address, business lines, owners, and capital structure of a Local Co is the Enterprise Registration (Đăng Ký Doanh Nghiệp) or Business Registration Certificate (Đăng Ký Kinh Doanh). Both terms are commonly abbreviated as BRC. On the other hand, a foreign investor setting up a new company in Vietnam will be issued an IC as the key incorporation document.

The Hanoi Department of Planning and Investment (Hanoi DPI) seemed to share the lawyers’ frustration when in May 2013, it sent a request to the Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) seeking clarification on the rules. We do not know whether and how the MPI responded to the Hanoi DPI’s request. However, the Hanoi DPI’s letter to the MPI provides many useful information about the licensing practice in this regards. In particular, according to Hanoi DPI,

  • Before May 2013, when a foreign investor purchases equity interests in a Local Co, Hanoi DPI would issue a new IC to the Local Co to replace its existing BRC. After acquisition, the Local Co will have the new IC as its incorporation document and will be treated as a foreign-invested enterprise (doanh nghiệp có vốn đầu tư nước ngoài) for all purposes;
  • After May 2013, the Hanoi DPI will not continue the current practice and will not accept new IC applications submitted by foreign buyers purchasing equity interests in a Local Co in Hanoi until there is further guidance by the MPI;
  • There has been inconsistent guidance by different departments of the MPI. The Business Registration Department of the MPI took the view that there is no procedure for “replacing” a BRC with an IC if a foreign buyer purchases equity interests in a Local Co. The Foreign Investment Department on the other hand has advised a Local Co to (1) amend the existing BRC to record the new foreign buyer as an owner and (2) thereafter, apply for a separate new IC recording the project that the Local Co is implementing;
  • MPI were asked to provide guidance on (1) timing, sequence, and procedures to amend an existing BRC of a Local Co to record a new foreign buyer and, if applicable, to obtain a new IC, (2) in what circumstances a new IC is required (depending on the business lines of the Local Co or the level of foreign ownership in the Local Co?), (3) can the foreign buyer voluntarily apply for a new IC even if one is not required, (4) if a new IC is issued in subsequent to a BRC, what happen if a new IC is not issued after the BRC has been amended, (5) which tax department will be in charge of a Local Co after a foreign buyer’s purchase (the tax department in charge of foreign-invested companies or the tax department in charge of domestic companies), (6) licensing procedures and management regime for branches of Local Co after a foreign buyer’s purchase, especially in case the Local Co is involved in conditional businesses for foreign investors such as retail, restaurant), (7) exact definition of foreign-invested enterprises in light of a very broad definition provided in the Investment Law for the purpose of land regulations, tax regulations and reporting obligations; and (8) procedures to record foreign buyers being non-founding shareholders in the BRC of a Local Co being joint stock company;
  • The Business Registration Department of the MPI considers an “acquisition” (mua lại) of a Local Co being the purchase of 100% charter capital of such Local Co which must be a sole-owner company (doanh nghiệp tư nhân). In January 2010, the Foreign Investment Department of the MPI agreed to the Ho Chi Minh DPI that a new IC will be issued to replace the existing BRC of a Local Co if the foreign buyer acquires 100% equity interest of such Local Co. In February 2013, the Business Registration Department of the MPI took a different view that there is no procedures for replacing an existing BRC with a new IC;
  • In Ho Chi Minh City, when a foreign investor purchases equity interests in a Local Co, HCMC DPI would (1) amend the current BRC of the Local Co to record the foreign buyer and (2) thereafter,  issue a new IC to the Local Co for an investment project. Hanoi DPI disagrees with HCMC DPI’s approach due to the uncertainties (see above);
  • In Vinh Phuc province, the Vinh Phuc DPI applies Hanoi DPI’s approach;
  • In Can Tho province, the Can Tho DPI applies Hanoi DPI’s approach for Local Co being manufacturing entities. Can Tho DPI does not accept purchase of equity interest by foreign buyers in Local Co being trading or services entities;
  • In Da Nang, if a foreign buyer acquires no more than 49% equity interest in a Local Co, Da Nang DPI will only amend the existing BRC and will not issue an IC. If a foreign buyer acquires from 51% to less than 100% equity interest in a Local Co, Da Nang DPI adopts HCMC DPI’s approach. If a foreign buyer acquires 100% equity interest in a Local Co, Da Nang DPI will issue a new IC to replace the existing BRC; and
  • In Binh Duong, if a Local Co is a manufacturing entity then Binh Duong DPI adopts Hanoi DPI’s approach in case the foreign buyer acquires 51% or more of the Local Co. If foreign buyer only acquires no more than 49% of a Local Co being a manufacturing entity then Binh Duong DPI only amends the existing BRC and does not issue an IC. If a Local Co being trading or services entity then Binh Duong will issue a new IC to replace the existing BRC even the foreign buyer only acquire 1% of the charter capital. 

The case against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien and its potential implication

The first hearings of the criminal cases against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien, former Board member of Asia Commercial Bank (ACB) and Ms Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu, former staff of Vietinbank, a large State-owned bank have raised many fundamental issues about the business law framework in Vietnam. Unfortunately, without a full transcript of the hearings, one cannot comment on the legal interpretation adopted by the courts.

That being said, newspaper reports about Mr Kien’s conviction of illegally doing business (tội kinh doanh trái phép) have shed some light about the court’s interpretation of “doing business” under Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law. The background of the case is as follows:

  • Mr Kien set up two companies which do not register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares but for other business lines;

  • These two companies acquire and/or sell shares in other companies;

  • The procurator takes the view that the two companies have illegally done business which are not recorded in their business registration certificates. Under Article 9.1 of the Enterprise Law, a company is required to do business within the scope of its business registration certificates;

  • Mr Kien takes the view that under Article 13 of the Enterprise Law, a company is entitled to acquire shares in another company. Therefore, there is no need for Mr Kien’s companies to register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares. In practice, the approach taken by Mr Kien’s companies is widely common. Some business registration authorities even refuse to register the business line of sale and purchase of shares on the basis that this activity is permitted by the Enterprise Law already; and

  • The first instance court hold that because Mr Kien’s companies do not do any business other than sale and purchase of shares, these companies are considered as engaging in the business of sale and purchase of shares.

 Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law provides that “doing business” (kinh doanh) means the continuous conduct of one, several or all of the stages of the investment process, from production to sale of products or provision of services in the market for profits. There is no further interpretation of the term “continuous conduct”. Now, it seems that the court will consider a business conduct by a company to be a continuous conduct if such business conduct is the only business conduct of the company. In light of this interpretation, owners of companies in Vietnam will likely pay more attention to ensure that their companies will at least actually engage in some business lines as provided in their business registration certificates.


Can a limited liability company in Vietnam sell its new capital contribution for a premium?

A profitable and well-run company usually demands a “premium” when it issues new equity to investors. This means that in a profitable company, a new investor may be required to pay more than the price paid by an existing investor for the same amount of equity and voting rights in the past. Usually, the difference between the price of the new equity portion and the nominal value of such equity portion is referred to as premium.

However, it appears that a limited liability company (LLC) in Vietnam may not be able to do so without changing the voting rights of existing members. This is because:

  • Other than in the context of a joint stock company (JSC), there is no legal concept of equity capital premium in the Enterprise Law and in accounting regulations. “Par value” of shares only exists in the context of shares in JSCs. And under Circular 19/2003, the difference between issuance price of new shares by a JSC and their aggregate par values could be recorded as “capital premium accounts”. On the other hand, capital contribution in a charter capital of a LLC does not have a “par value”.  There is no legal concept for the difference between the price of the new capital contribution portion and the nominal value of such capital contribution portion. Therefore, LLC does not have capital contribution premium if it issues new capital contribution;
  • Decree 102/2010  further provides that charter capital of a LLC with two or more members is “the total value of capital portions” already contributed or undertaken to be contributed within a certain period by its members and is stated in the company charter. If the value of all assets contributed by members of a LLC including new members constitutes the charter capital of such LLC then there is no capital contribution premium in a LCC. In addition, under Decree 102/2010, all amounts paid by a new member of a LLC should carry voting rights; and
  • Tax regulations only expressly exempt corporate income tax on share premium received by a JSC. Therefore, there is no certainty that a LLC will be exempted from capital contribution premium.

In light of the above, a LLC wishing to issue new capital contribution at a premium may consider an alternative structure which allows such a LLC to record the actual value of the amount to be contributed by the new member and at the same time maintains the desired ownership percentage and voting among all members.

New Circular on exchange control over foreign indirect investment

Earlier this week, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular 5/2014 regulating exchange control over foreign indirect investment. Circular 5/2014 will take effects from 28 April 2014 replacing the old Circular 3/2004 on similar issue. Circular 5/2014 reinforces  the requirement under Decree 160/2006 and the Ordinance on Foreign Exchange that all foreign indirect investment must be made in Vietnamese Dong and through an indirect investment capital account (tài khoản vốn đầu tư gián tiếp) which is commonly named as the “CCA”. That being said, a quick read of Circular 5/2014 raises the following issues:

  • Circular 5/2014 does not apply to foreign investors who are resident under the foreign exchange regulations including foreign individuals residing in Vietnam for 12 months or more.
  • A foreign investor cannot use the Vietnamese Dong amount in the CCA to make fixed-term deposit or saving deposit. This restriction appears to restrict foreign investors using the CCA to conduct carry trades in Vietnamese Dong.
  • Investment entrustment (ủy thác đầu tư) is now regarded as a form of indirect investment.
  • Circular 5/2014 does not apply to a foreign investor who purchases shares or makes capital contribution and who does not “directly” participate in the management and operation of the target company.  However, as in other earlier legislation, Circular 5/2014 fails to clarify which activity could amount to direct participation in the management and operation of a company.
  • If an indirect investment becomes a direct investment and the foreign investor does not have any other indirect investment, Circular 5/2014 requires the foreign investor to open a “direct investment capital account in Vietnamese Dong” and closes the CCA. However, a “direct investment capital account in Vietnamese Dong” is a new concept and has not been contemplated in earlier regulations such as Decree 160/2006 or the Ordinance on Foreign Exchange.
  • Circular 5/2014 also does not contemplate necessary procedures in case where a direct investment becomes an indirect investment.
  • By around 28 July 2014, all capital contribution and share purchase accounts opened under Circular 3/2006 must be renamed to indirect investment capital accounts. In addition, all foreign currencies deposited by foreign investors with securities companies must be converted into Vietnamese Dong and transferred to the CCA under Circular 5/2014.
Vietnam Business Law Blog

In recent years, digital assets have been at the forefront of regulatory discussions worldwide. Vietnam is also making an effort to create a legal framework for its 100-billion-dollar market with the issuance of the 2025 Law on Digital Technology Industry – which is the first to introduce the legal definition of “digital assets”, and the Resolution 05/2025/NQ-CP greenlighting pilot program for the cryptographic digital assets market (Resolution 05/2025).

With the effective date of the Law on Digital Technology Industry fast approaching, we have a few comments on the current legal concept of digital assets in Vietnam, which we find to be rudimentary and raises more questions than answers.

For a long time, Vietnam’s housing law has restricted housing developers (generally, “master developer”) from distributing houses or residential land use rights within a project as in-kind profit to capital-contributing partners (generally, “secondary investors”). This restriction aims to prevent the master developers from using capital contribution arrangements to sell off-plan houses to customers before those properties are legally qualified for sale. In particular, Article 116.1(e) of the Housing Law 2023 currently provides that:

Under the Enterprise Law 2020, a minority ordinary shareholder voting against certain important decisions of the General Meeting of Shareholders may request the relevant joint stock company to redeem the shares held by such dissenting shareholder.  However, the law is not clear about the scope of this redemption. In particular,

  • It is not clear whether the redemption right covers both ordinary shares and preference shares held by the dissenting shareholder. The law provides that in the request for redemption, the shareholder will specify the number of shares of each class. This suggests that the redemption right covers preference shares in addition to ordinary shares.

  • A conflict arises if the redemption right is found to cover preference shares, but the terms of those shares (as defined in the charter) do not permit redemption. In this situation, it is not clear whether the company can lawfully refuse the request. Since a shareholder needs to comply with the charter which contains the terms of the preference shares, the dissenting shareholder cannot require the company to redeem the relevant preference shares. On the other hand, since the provisions on the content of a redemption request do not clearly exclude shares which cannot be redeemed, the dissenting shareholder can argue that it has the right to specify all the shares (including non-redeemable preference shares) in the redemption request.

In June 2025, the National Assembly passed a new Law on Personal Data Protection (PDPL 2025), set to take effect on 1 January 2026. This new law represents a significant evolution from the foundational framework established by Decree 13/2023, introducing a far more comprehensive and stringent regime for personal data protection. This post will analyze some critical highlights of the new PDPL 2025, with some important implications for businesses. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).

A narrower extraterritorial scope of application

The PDPL 2025 narrows its extraterritorial application compared to previous regulations. Instead of a broad rule for "foreigners' data, the PDPL 2025 explicitly applies to foreign entities that are directly involved in or related to the processing of personal data of Vietnamese citizens and people of Vietnamese origin residing in Vietnam. This new provision successfully addressed the confusion and uncertainty that the earlier draft of PDPL 2025 had introduced (see our discussions here).

However, this scope of application still has the following issues:

·       It has not addressed the existing ambiguity under Decree 13/2023 of whether the applicable subjects under the PDPL 2025 apply to the processing entities or data subjects (see our discussions here)

·       The PDPL 2025 is also unclear on its application to foreign organizations processing the data of non-Vietnamese individuals (e.g., tourists, expatriates) within Vietnam. While Article 1.2 of the PDPL 2025 does not explicitly cover this scenario, Article 5.1 states the law applies to all "personal data protection activities on the territory of Vietnam", which may arguably cover this case.

In June 2025, the National Assembly adopted several amendments to existing 2012 Law on Advertising (Advertising Law Amendments 2025). The amended law will take effect from 1 January 2026. In this post, we discuss some of the material changes introduced by Advertising Law Amendments 2025. To offer a comprehensive perspective, we also include a summary generated by Google's Gemini AI for comparison and reference (see here).

New Carve-out To The Prohibition On Comparative Advertising

The Advertising Law Amendment 2025 allows comparative advertising between one’s own products/goods/services and those of other entities of the same kind when there is “legitimate supporting documentation”. Before this, all comparative advertising was prohibited. The new carved out opens the door for lawful and transparent comparative advertising.

The Ministry of Finance has recently collected opinions on a new draft of the Business Investment Law, which proposes certain changes to the current Investment Law 2020. The draft law is expected to take effect from 1 July 2026. We discuss some key changes proposed in the draft Business Investment Law.

Lack of bold reforms directed by the Politburo  

Earlier this year, the Politburo of the Communist Party of Vietnam (the highest decision- making authority in Vietnam) issued Resolution 68/2025 on developing the private business sector. At the time, Resolution 68 was widely reported as a bold move to start a “new dawn” for Vietnam private business sector (see here for example). Following Resolution 68, the National Assembly duly issued Resolution 198/2025 to make Resolution 68 the law of the land. However, since Resolution 198/2025 simply copied and pasted from the text of Resolution 68, it is difficult to know how the instructions and reforms directed by the Politburo are to be implemented in practice. The National Assembly nevertheless requires complete changes to the “investment law” to implement the instructions from the Politburo by December 2025 which includes a reduction of at least 30% of business conditions.

One would expect that the amendments to the Investment Law will provide further implementation and guidance to Resolution 198/2025. However, it appears this is not the case. For example, the new draft Business Investment Law has 212 areas of conditional business a reduction of mere 10% (not 30%). The new draft Business Investment Law retains  the investment licensing procedures introduced 30 years ago under the Foreign Investment Law 1987 with some unclear tinkering.

Shortly after the issuance of the Law on Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents early this year, on 25 June 2025, it enacted a law amending such law (the Amending Law) (collectively known as the Law on Law 2025). Below are the key changes:

1. Enhancing certainty

1.1. A crucial reform for legal certainty is the revised provision on effectiveness for guiding documents. Under the Amending Law, when a parent law is replaced or expires, any documents issued to detail it (such as decrees) will now automatically expire as well. They will only remain in effect if a state agency makes a formal, public announcement that they will continue.

On 16 June 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam officially passed the Employment Law 2025, replacing the Employment Law 2013. The new law will take effect on 1 January 2026. Among its most significant revisions are changes to unemployment insurance (UI) regulations, aimed at expanding coverage, increasing benefits, and clarifying the responsibilities of both employers and employees. This article summarizes the most notable updates to Vietnam’s unemployment insurance system and other key changes under the new Employment Law 2025.

1. Major Changes to the Unemployment Insurance System

·       Broader Scope of Participants: The Employment Law 2025 broadens the scope of mandatory UI participation to include (1) employees with labor contracts of at least one month and (2) part-time employees under similar contracts whose monthly salary exceeds the minimum wage.

·       Additional Exclusions: The Employment Law 2025 now excludes the following groups from UI participation: (1) employees who meet the conditions for receiving retirement pensions (not just those already receiving them, as under the 2013 Law), (2) employees receiving other social insurance benefits or monthly government allowances, and (3) employees on probationary contracts. The new law also broadens the situations where UI contributions are not required. Now, employees who do not receive a salary for 14 working days or more in a month will not be subject to UI contributions. (Previously, under Decree 28/2015, this only applied to those on maternity or sick leave for that duration).

·       Contribution Rates and Salary Basis: The UI contribution rate is set at a maximum of 1% of the employee’s monthly salary, giving the government flexibility to adjust the rate below this ceiling if needed. The salary basis for UI contributions now includes the monthly salary plus any allowances or other regular additional payments. This is a change from the Employment Law 2013, which based UI contributions only on the salary used for social insurance.

On 14 June 2025, the National Assembly passed the amended Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). Among other things, this legislation is expected to bring significant changes in determining the method of calculating tax for capital transfer and securities transfer transactions (Capital Gains Tax) undertaken by foreign companies. This post aims to provide a comprehensive and clear overview by analyzing and comparing these new regulations with those stipulated in the Corporate Income Tax Law 2008 (CIT Law 2008).

1)         Definition of Taxable Income Arising in Vietnam for Foreign Companies

A key area of adjustment in the CIT Law 2025 relates to the definition of taxable income arising in Vietnam for foreign companies, making it more transparent.

Under the CIT Law 2008, the specific definition of such income was not explicitly clarified within the law itself; rather, it was detailed in Decree 218/2013 guiding the CIT Law 2008. In contrast, the CIT Law 2025 has directly incorporated this definition, clearly stating that taxable income arising in Vietnam for foreign companies is income originating from Vietnam, irrespective of the location where business activities are conducted.

On 27 June 2025, as a foundational step for establishing an international financial hub in Vietnam, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopts the Resolution 222 on the International Financial Center (IFC) in Vietnam (specifically in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang City) (Resolution 222). However, when compared to international best practices, the Resolution reveals several weaknesses that may deter international investors.

Based on a comparative analysis, here are the main drawbacks:

  • Isolation from Vietnam domestic markets – Perhaps the most important benefits of investing in an IFC in Vietnam is the opportunity to access Vietnam domestic capital and financial market. Unfortunately, Resolution 222 does not clearly contemplate how an IFC member can invest or interact with Vietnam domestic capital and financial market. Without a better access to Vietnamese domestic markets, investors from regional financial centers may have less incentives to move to the IFC in Vietnam.

  • Unstable and unpredictable legal framework: Resolution 222 took effect from 1 September 2025. After five years, the legal framework contemplated by Resolution 222 will be reviewed by the National Assembly and may be replaced by a Law on International Financial Center. Existing projects can continue to operate under “existing” legal frameworks at such time. Given the amount of implementing legislation and the infrastructure required, it may take one to two years for the IFC to be up and running. Accordingly, investors may only have around three to four years to actually run theirs businesses before a potential new law will be issued. During the operation of the IFC, a regulation can be issued to limit the rights of IFC members to ensure “national interests” and “prevent threats against national security”. This provision is very broad and vague and could allow IFC regulators to change their regulations at any time.