Vietnam Business Law is a website managed by lawyers of Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw). Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw) is a Vietnamese commercial law firm. We won the Rising Law Firm of the Year Award at the Southeast Asia Law Awards for the years 2020 and 2021 held by The Legal 500. Very few Vietnamese law firms have achieved a similar regional recognition.
Posted in: Securities Regulations
Decree 42/2015 is an entirely new decree governing “derivative securities” (chứng khoán phái sinh) and will take effect from July 2015. A quick read of Decree 42/2015 seems to indicate that Decree 42/2015 is intended to provide a legal framework for a regulated market for derivatives in Vietnam. In particular, Decree 42/2015 provides detailed requirements for:
The Securities Law 2006 requires any securities issued by a public company to be registered with the Vietnam Securities Depository Centre (VSD). The term “securities” includes, among other things, shares, bonds, warrants, options, future, and “investment contracts”. The registration at VSD is to record the ownership rights and other rights of the securities holders.
Option arrangements are used quite frequently in M&A transactions in Vietnam. Many foreign investors have used options or convertible securities as a mechanism to, among other things, acquire additional shares once the regulatory restriction is removed or to allocate commercial risks between the parties.
Generally speaking, an option arrangement should be valid for the following reasons:
Under Article 64 of the Commercial Law, options to purchase goods or options to buy goods are allowed to traded on a commodity exchange organized under the Commercial Law. In particular, call option or put option contract means an agreement whereby the option purchaser has the right to purchase or to be sold a certain type of goods at a pre-determined price (referred to as the contracted price) and must pay a certain amount of money for the purchase of this right (referred to as the option price). The option purchaser has the right to opt to carry out or not to carry out such purchase and sale of such goods.
However, the major difficulty relating to option arrangement is that exercising an option is not an automatic process. In Vietnam, after an option is exercised, the parties usually have to obtain necessary regulatory or corporate approvals so that shares can be issued or transferred to the relevant option holder. Therefore, cooperation of the counterparties is essential for successfully exercising an option arrangement. Certain option arrangements appear to have been successfully implemented with the cooperation of the parties involved.
Another difficulty is that although there is law which generally recognizes options arrangements, there are few detail implementation rules and regulations or court precedents. Therefore, it is difficult to anticipate how the authorities including the courts and other authorities view and enforce an option arrangement in practice.
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.
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. To be specific:
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.”
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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
When partnering with government agencies (G2B), the risks often come from policy changes and the adoption of new legislation, causing obstacles, delays, and payment backlogs in PPP contracts (especially BT contracts). Following the establishment of Steering Committee 751 (Ban Chỉ Đạo 751) to resolve investment projects with pending legal issues, the Government has recently prepared a Resolution Draft (the Draft) to address approximately 160 transitional BT projects still facing legal obstacles (such projects, “Pending BT Project”).
Focusing specifically on Pending BT Projects where land-use rights serve as the State’s payment mechanism, the following analysis highlights critical issues arising from the proposed changes introduced by this Draft:
On 31 December 2025, the Government issued Decree 356/2025 guiding the implementation of the PDPL 2025, which took effect on 1 January 2026. Decree 356/2025 provides critical detailed guidance and, notably, resolves several ambiguities under the PDPL 2025 framework. This post highlights the key takeaways from this new regulation.
1. Expansion of "sensitive personal data": ID Cards and login credentials
As compared to the Draft PDPL Decree, Decree 356/2025 expands the scope of sensitive personal data to explicitly include:
On 11 December 2025, the National Assembly adopted new investment law (Investment Law 2025). On this blog, we discuss some key changes in the new Investment Law 2025.
Clarification of business investment conditions
The Investment Law 2025 refines the definition of business investment conditions (Điều kiện đầu tư kinh doanh) by introducing an explicit exclusion: these conditions no longer encompass technical standards and regulations issued by competent authorities concerning product or service quality. This addition narrows the scope of what constitutes a "conditional business line", distinguishing administrative market-entry conditions from mere technical product standards.
At law, the following provisions suggest that existing shareholders of a Vietnamese shareholding company have pre-emptive rights over new shares issued by the company:
Under Article 79.1(c) of the Enterprise Law, an ordinary shareholder in a shareholding company has priority right to subscribe for new shares issued by the company in proportion to the shareholding of such shareholder in the company;
Article 87.2 of the Enterprise Law provides that when a shareholding company issues new ordinary shares and offers such shares to all ordinary shareholders, the company must send a written notice to each shareholder setting out the terms of the offer and a reasonable period for the shareholder to consider the offer. If there is any shareholder failing to subscribe for the shares offered to them, the Board of Directors (the Board) of the company is entitled to offer such shares to a third party on terms, which are not more favourable than the terms originally offered to the relevant shareholder; and
Article 87.2(c) of the Enterprise Law provides that a shareholder may transfer its pre-emptive right to other persons.
On the other hand, there are certain provisions, which indicate that there may be exemptions to the pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders under the Enterprise Law. In particular,
Article 87.6 of the Enterprise Law states that “the Government shall provide implementing regulations for private placement of shares”. One therefore may argue that in case of a private placement of shares, there is no pre-emptive right. This is consistent with the fact that the regulations on private placement of shares which involve issuance of new shares to third party investor do not specifically require each existing shareholder to waive their pre-emptive rights before the company can issue new shares to third party investors. In practice, it seems that the regulators do not take into account pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders if the new share issuance is approved by the shareholders meeting; and
The Ministry of Finance has issued a model charter applicable to public companies in Vietnam, which provides that new shares must be offered to existing shareholders proportionally “unless otherwise decided by the General Meeting of Shareholders” (Decision 121 of the MOF dated 26 July 2012). A resolution of the General Meeting of Shareholders of a public company (which adopts the model charter) to issue shares to a specific entity could therefore be interpreted as constituting an exception to the right to personal notice and waiver that is in the Enterprise Law.