Can a foreign bank acquire 100% shares in a Vietnamese joint stock bank?
There has been an argument that under the new Decree 1/2014 a foreign bank may acquire 100% of the shares in a Vietnamese joint stock bank (Local Bank) if (1) the Local Bank is, among other things, a “weak credit institution”, and (2) the Prime Minister approves to increase the foreign ownership limit in the relevant Local Bank to 100%. However, in order for a foreign bank to acquire 100% of the shares in a Local Bank, various legal issues still need to be clarified. In particular,
- It is not clear if Decree 1/2014 is applicable to the scenario where a foreign bank acquires shares in Local Bank and becomes a single-member LLC bank owned by the foreign bank. Decree 1/2014 allows the Prime Minister to increase the foreign ownership limit in a Local Bank. However, Decree 1/2014 appears to be drafted on the assumption that the Local Bank will remain to be a joint stock bank even after the acquisition by a foreign bank. For example, all of the provisions in Decree 1/2014 regarding rights and obligations of a foreign investor after acquiring a Local Bank refer to “share” and “shareholders”.
- A Local Bank is required to have at least 100 shareholders under the Law on Credit Institutions. If a foreign investor acquires 100% of the shares in a Local Bank, the Local Bank will become a 100% foreign-invested bank existing in the form of a single member limited liability company (LLC). The Law on Credit Institutions and Decree 59/2009 currently do not have any specific procedures for converting a local joint stock bank into a single-member LLC bank owned by a foreign bank. Instead, the Law on Credit Institutions and Decree 59/2009 only generally provide that conversion (chuyển đổi) of legal corporate form of a joint stock bank requires State Bank’s approval. As such presumably, the conversion of a local joint stock bank into a single-member LLC bank will need to follow the procedures under the Enterprise Law and Decree 102/2010. This means that, among other things, the conversion would require (1) super majority approval by the General Meeting of Shareholder of the Local Bank and (2) the share purchase price by the foreign bank to be determined according to market price or price determined by certain valuation methods.
- After a 100% acquisition, the Local Bank will become a 100% foreign-invested bank. Therefore, presumably, the foreign investor will need to satisfy the conditions of setting up a 100% foreign-invested bank in Vietnam in addition to the conditions of acquiring shares in Local Bank in Vietnam.
- A Local Bank is also a public joint stock company in Vietnam. Therefore, acquiring 100% shares in a Local Bank will be subject to the tender offer rules under the securities law unless an exemption is granted by the General Meeting of Shareholders.
- A conversion of a Local Bank into a single-member LLC bank owned by a foreign bank would require (1) consent by all of the shareholders of the Local Bank for selling their shares to the foreign bank and (2) super majority approval by the Local Bank’s shareholders. If a shareholder in the Local Bank objects to the 100% acquisition, it may be difficult to complete the acquisition voluntarily. Under the Law on Credit Institutions, only when a Local Bank is put under “special control” (kiểm soát đặc biệt) by the State Bank, the State Bank may compel the Local Bank to be acquired by another bank or by the State Bank itself. Even in case of special control, the legal ground and procedures for a compulsory transfer of shares is still unclear and untested.
On 15 May 2026, the Government issued Resolution No. 66.17/2026/NQ-CP (the Resolution 66.17 or the new), slimming down the list of conditional business sectors currently set out in Appendix IV of Investment Law 2025 (the old).
Resolution 66.17 will take effect on 1 July 2026 and is set to expire on 28 February 2027, by which time the Government expects the National Assembly to formalise these adjustments through an amendment to Appendix IV. Although there would be a question about the effectiveness of the Resolution 66.17 over the Appendix 4 of Investment Law 2025 and how the investment authority will apply in practice, the investor may, in the meantime, treat the Resolution 66.17 as the working text for the next 9–10 months while following up on the law amendments.
Under Article 41 of the Law on Real Estate Business 2023 (Real Estate Business Law), a real estate project (Project) eligible for transfer may follow one of two sets of legal procedures, depending on how it was approved. While the difference may appear procedural at first glance, it has significant implications for when the transfer transaction is legally completed, and for what the parties can (or cannot) do if the transaction ultimately falls through. This post discusses the two procedures and the practical implications arising from the distinction between them.
Vietnam has temporarily raised several general economic concentration notification thresholds under Resolution No. 66.18 of the Government dated 18 May 2026 (Resolution 66/2026), a practical change for M&A transactions as fewer deals should be caught solely by Vietnamese assets, Vietnamese turnover or transaction value.
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. […]
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.