Sale of Shares to Strategic Investors During Equitisation
Below are some selected issues relating to the sale of shares to Strategic Investors during equitisation of a State-Owned Enterprise (Equitised SOE). These issues are discussed in more detail in my book on equitisation of Vietnamese SOEs.
Timing
Under Decree 59/2011, the proposed sale price for shares offered to Strategic Investors will be decided based on, among other things, the timing of the proposed sale (i.e. whether before or after the sale of shares to public investors in the equitisation (the Equitisation IPO)).
However, Decree 59/2011 also provides that for certain special Equitized SOE, if it is “absolutely necessary” to select Strategic Investors before the Equitisation IPO, the Prime Minister will decide the criteria for selecting Strategic Investors, the method of sale and the number of shares to be sold to Strategic Investors. This provision implies that the option to sell shares to Strategic Investors before the Equitisation IPO is only available to certain special Equitised SOE and is subject to approval by the Prime Minister.
Applicability of private placement rules
Decree 58/2012 implementing the Securities Law does not contain specific provisions stating that the sale of shares in the joint stock company established from the Equitised SOE (the Equitised JSC) to Strategic Investors by the Equitised SOEs is not subject to private placement regulations under Decree 58/2012. Instead, Decree 58/2012 states that a limited liability company privately issuing shares in order to convert to a joint stock company will be subject to private placement regulations. It is therefore not clear whether the private placement regulations under Decree 58/2012 will apply to a private placement of shares by an Equitised SOE to a Strategic Investor during the equitisation of such Equitised SOE. If the provisions of Decree 58/2012 applies then it would certainly make the situation much more complicated due to potential overlapping and conflicting requirements between two different sets of regulations.
For a sale of shares to Strategic Investors after the Equitisation IPO, the sale price must not be less than the lowest successful auction price in the Equitisation IPO (Minimum IPO Price). Decree 59/2011 provides that for the sale of shares to Strategic Investors “who have registered for purchase of shares” before the Equitisation IPO, the sale price to the Strategic Investor must not be lower than the Minimum Offer Price. The wording of this provision seems to suggest that a Strategic Investor needs only register to purchase shares before the Equitisation IPO in order to be entitled to the floor price, which is the Minimum Offer Price.
Previous equitisation regulations required that the sale price to Strategic Investors in an Equitised JSC must not be less than the average successful auction price of the Equitisation IPO. Compared to previous equitisation regulations, Decree 59/2011 provides more certainty and flexibility regarding the sale price to a Strategic Investor in the event that the sale occurs before the Equitisation IPO. This is because under Decree 59/2011, a potential Strategic Investor will be aware of the Minimum Offer Price before making a binding offer to the Equitised SOE. Under previous regulations, very few Strategic Investors could make a binding offer before the Equitisation IPO because the average successful auction price in the Equitisation IPO, and accordingly, the minimum purchase price, were still unknown and no sensible investors would write a blank check to the Equitised SOE.
Decree 59/2011 provides that the shares in an Equitised JSC sold to a Strategic Investor are not transferrable for at least 5 years from the incorporation of the Equitised JSC, unless otherwise approved by the General Meeting of Shareholders of the Equitised JSC.
Auction sale vs. direct negotiation
Decree 59/2011 provides that “in case of direct negotiation with or auction among Strategic Investors”. As such, Decree 59/2011 appears to allow the sale of shares to Strategic Investors to be conducted either through an auction process or through direct negotiation.
Circular 196/2011 provides that if there are more than three Strategic Investors registering to purchase shares in the Equitised JSC, then the Equitised SOE must hold an auction among the interested Strategic Investors. In addition, if there are up to three Strategic Investors registering to purchase shares in the Equitised JSC and the number of shares registered for purchase exceeds the number of shares allocated to interested Strategic Investors, then the Equitised SOE must also hold an auction among the interested Strategic Investors.
If there are less than three Strategic Investors registering to purchase shares in the Equitised JSC and the number of shares registered for purchase do not exceed the number of shares allocated to interested Strategic Investors, then the Equitised SOE can directly negotiate with each Strategic Investor for sale of shares in the Equitised JSC.
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.
In a significant move to streamline the execution of the Land Law 2024, the National Assembly of Vietnam recently passed Resolution 254/2025 on specific policies and mechanism to resolve obstacles in implementation of the Land Law 2024. Effective from 1 January 2026, Resolution 254/2025 is intended to apply alongside the Land Law 2024 and prevails in case of conflict. In essence, Resolution 254/2025 could be considered as an amendment to the Land Law 2024.
In this post, we will summarize the key changes introduced under Resolution 254/2025.
1. Expanded Scope for Land Recovery
Resolution 254/2025 introduces three additional scenarios under which the State may recover land to promote socio-economic development. Specifically, it now includes:
On 18 December 2025, the Vietnamese government issued Decree 323/2025 on the establishment of Vietnam International Financial Center (VIFC). Decree 323/2025 takes effect immediately and provides guidance for Article 8 and 9 of Resolution 222/2025 of the National Assembly on VIFC. In this post, we discuss some interesting points of Decree 323/2025
1. Single or multiple units
The National Assembly intends that VIFC is one single unit. To confirm this intention, Decree 323/2025 provides that VIFC is a unified legal unit (thực thể pháp lý thống nhất in Vietnamese). However, Vietnamese law does not have definition of legal unit (thực thể pháp lý). In addition, this provision of Decree 323/2025 also seems to contradict with Resolution 222/2025 which defines VIFC as an area with defined geographical boundaries.
However, by locating that single unit into two separate location, putting it under management of multiples authorties, and giving each location a different set of priorities, it is doubtful on how the operation of VIFC can be unified. This is evidenced by:
The VIFC is oddly named as “Viet Nam International Financial Center in Ho Chi Minh City (VIFC-HCMC) and Viet Nam International Financial Center in Da Nang City (VIFC-DN)” which compries two individual names within one single entity name.
The Operating Authority and Supervisory Authority of VIFC have legal person status, which implied that these authorities’ legal responsibility is independent with VIFC’s legal responsibility.
The Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law), which was passed by the National Assembly on 10 December 2025, is arguably among the most anticipated pieces of legislation of Vietnam in 2025.
Unfortunately, similar to the Law on Digital Technology Industry, Vietnam’s AI Law still feels like a half-baked legislation, which makes it hard to clearly identifying the key players in the artificial intelligence (AI) value chain. This article would examine several key terminologies under the AI Law.
To retain talent after investing in expensive training, employers often require employees to sign a training contract covering, among other things, work commitment and reimbursement of training costs. In that context, the critical legal question arises if there is a conflict between the provisions of the training contract and the employment contract which of the two will prevail. For example, if an employee exercises their right to terminate the employment contract under the Labor Code, can they disregard the work commitment and avoid reimbursement penalties stipulated in the training contract?
Under Data Law 2024 and the Law on Personal Data Protection 2025 (PDPL 2025), several data-related services, including “personal data processing service” (dịch vụ xử lý dữ liệu cá nhân), personal data protection service (DPO Service), data intermediary service, data trading floor and data synthesis and analysis service (collectively, New Data-Related Services) are now designated as conditional business sectors. The New Data-Related Services (which could include dozen of sub-services) are subject to specific licenses and operational conditions. In the past, data processing or exploitation services in Vietnam were not classified as conditional business lines, allowing providers to operate with limited regulatory prerequisites.
In short, the Government has arguably created (or at least intended to create) more than just a regulatory system; it has established a complex compliance economy. This new framework tethers businesses to a costly ecosystem of mandatory intermediaries, from licensing consultants to training centers and credit rating agencies. To remain operational, enterprises must now absorb the dual burden of initial licensing fees and the recurring costs of maintaining qualified staff and ratings. As these obligations mount, the pressing question remains: will this expensive bureaucracy actually reduce the daily scam calls and messages suffered by Vietnamese citizens, or simply increase the cost of doing business?
We are still waiting for the official Decree guiding the Corporate Income Tax Law 2025 (CIT Law 2025). However, the New Draft Decree of the Government dated 5 September 2025 (New Draft Decree) and the Official Letter 4685 of the Tax Department dated 29 October 2025 (Official Letter 4685) provide critical updates.
For foreign investors, the rules for selling capital in Vietnam are shifting. The new rules broaden the tax scope while offering potential - though ambiguous - exemptions. Below is our analysis of the key changes.
1. Clarifying the Scope: Direct vs. Indirect Transfers
In our previous post, we highlighted the uncertainty regarding whether “indirect transfers” (selling the offshore parent) and “direct transfers” (selling the Vietnam entity) would be taxed differently. The previous Draft Decree was ambiguous, applying the 2% revenue tax rate only to transactions where the owner “does not directly manage the business.” This implied that direct transfers might face a different tax rate.
The New Draft Decree resolves this uncertainty with two key changes:
· Unified Tax Treatment: Article 3.3 of the New Draft Decree explicitly states that taxable income for foreign companies includes income from capital transfers, whether direct or indirect. This confirms a unified approach: whether a foreign investor transfers capital in a domestic entity or in an offshore holding company, the tax treatment is identical.
· New exemptions replacing the “management” test: Article 11.2(i) of the New Draft Decree clarifies that the 2% tax on revenue applies to all capital transfers, with three specific exceptions: (i) restructuring (tái cơ cấu), (ii) internal financial arrangements of the seller (dàn xếp tài chính nội bộ của bên chuyển nhượng), or (iii) consolidation of the seller’s parent company (hợp nhất của công ty mẹ của bên chuyển nhượng).
While this appears helpful for internal group restructuring, investors should note that terms like “restructuring” and “internal financial arrangements” are not clearly defined in Vietnamese law. Without specific definitions, the determination of these exemptions will remain subject to the tax officers’ discretion.
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.