You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

December 6, 2018

New Legislation Clarifies the Landscape for Representative Offices in Laos

Informed Counsel

Although Laos is generally acknowledged as a small nation with notable potential, it is also viewed as a niche market for specific industries, such as energy (especially hydropower) or mining, due to its preponderance of natural resources. While it is true that these industries do well here, there are myriad other investment opportunities in this emerging economy that potential investors have the opportunity to capitalize and benefit from. However, other sectors are often hampered by a lack of clear intelligence on them for prospective investors to base investment decisions on.

Representative Offices (ROs) provide the gateway to such opportunities, and are an unmatched resource for prospective investors who are considering Laos as an investment destination. Establishing an RO gives investors the ability to effectively gather, analyze, and assess business opportunities, which is unusually beneficial in Laos due to the scarcity of other reliable statistics and information outside of the country.

However, the 2016 Law on Investment Promotion, which permitted ROs, contained few procedural provisions on how they could actually be registered, leaving a problematic regulatory gap. Indeed, that law even expressly required further legislation to be implemented in future. In its absence, the relevant authorities have adopted informal policies and procedures for registration. This has left establishing and registering an RO in Laos an uncertain business.
Investors in Laos therefore welcomed the recent Decision No. 1825/MPI on the Establishment and Management of a Representative Office for Foreign Legal Entities Based in Laos (the Decision), which was published on August 6, 2018. Effective since August 13, the decision formalizes and clarifies the procedures for setting up an RO in Laos.

Types of RO and Operational Restrictions

The Decision provides distinct classifications for two types of RO: those that are established to carry out concession activities under the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding or agreement with local government; and those that are established outside of such a framework.

A third classification for multinational and transnational corporations was considered, but ultimately abandoned during the consultation period. During public and private sector consultations, concerns were raised about how such corporations would be defined, as there is no single, clear, pre-existing definition of them under Lao law. While such a class would certainly have had its benefits if properly executed, limiting the Decision to two classes is generally seen as the more beneficial option for the time being, as it will add to the assuredness and efficiency of the registration process.

It should be noted that ROs licensed under either category are restricted from carrying out business activities or generating income; advertising goods, services, or other products in any manner; allowing others to use their RO license; and issuing receipts or invoices for revenue or other types of income. In addition, no more than two foreign employees are allowed to work at any given RO, and Lao citizens must be given preference. Any and all foreign workers remain subject to work and residency permit requirements.

Conditions and Timeline for Registration

The Decision lays out a set of conditions that must be met in order to establish an RO in Laos, many of which are relatively standard requirements carried over from the preexisting legal regime (for example, entities must be registered in another jurisdiction and be able to produce their various corporate secretarial documents, etc.). In this way, the legislation formalizes many of the informal policies that have been used to register ROs so far under the 2016 Law on Investment Promotion.

Most notable among the conditions under the Decision is the retained requirement for ROs to have minimum registered capital of USD 50,000 in order to be registrable. During preliminary discussions (before the implementation of the Decision) individuals from the private and public sector alike expressed their concerns about this requirement, citing a previous move by the Lao government to abolish minimum registered capital for legal entities in order to facilitate the creation of companies in Laos. However, the government’s legislative agenda has been steadily moving away from that policy, and after discussions ended and all concerns had been considered, the Lao authorities moved forward with the minimum registered capital requirement of USD 50,000.

If all conditions are met, a legal entity can file a registration to establish an RO in Laos through the Ministry of Planning and Investment’s One Stop Service. The Decision states that registration should take 15 working days from the date of filing until approval is granted. However, in practice, this timeframe may slightly differ.

Conclusion

Although the 2016 Law on Investment Promotion permitted setting up ROs in Laos, it has taken a long time for the procedural regulations that support that set-up to come into being. Registration of an RO since then has been fraught with uncertainty, and the Decision, by fixing the regulatory framework, is therefore a great step toward a sturdy RO landscape in Laos. This is another example of recent efforts by local authorities to provide clearer and more thorough rules and regulations, superseding the more casual practices that have shaped the regulatory framework in Laos today.

The Decision has been openly welcomed by foreign entities that are contemplating potentially lucrative investment opportunities in Laos. Foreign investors are able to establish a local RO in Laos in order to test the waters and collect necessary data and information on business potential, before fully committing to a long-term investment in the country.

Ultimately, the Decision provides increased incentives for foreign investors to consider Laos as a market for expansion, and in turn is likely to propel the country’s growing economy.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
Vietnam’s Law on Bankruptcy and Rehabilitation No. 142/2025/QH15, passed by the National Assembly on December 11, 2025, does something many regional counterparts do not yet attempt: it instructs parties and arbitral tribunals on exactly what happens to an arbitration once a debtor becomes insolvent. Together with the Law on Commercial Arbitration No. 54/2010/QH12, the new law improves upon what used to be an uncertain area of practice, now providing an explicit, mandatory sequence of procedures. Suspension and Termination of Arbitration Proceedings Under article 40(2) of the law, once a Vietnamese court accepts a bankruptcy petition, any arbitration that concerns the debtor’s financial obligations must be temporarily suspended as soon as the tribunal receives the court’s notification. If the court subsequently issues a decision commencing bankruptcy proceedings, article 59(2) takes a further step: the suspended arbitration is terminated outright, and the underlying case file is transferred to the court handling the insolvency for resolution. The two provisions work as a sequence: first suspension, then termination and transfer, rather than as independent triggers. Meanwhile, article 60(4) reinforces this effect by vesting the bankruptcy court with exclusive jurisdiction over all claims against the debtor from the date the petition is accepted. Notably, this mechanism operates automatically, without the need for the insolvency court to issue a separate anti-arbitration order. The tribunal simply suspends or terminates the proceeding by operation of law once notified; however, Vietnamese law currently provides no procedure by which a party can apply to the insolvency court for permission to continue the arbitration despite the statutory effect. Practitioners with a Vietnamese counterparty in arbitration should treat notification of a bankruptcy filing as something to flag to the tribunal immediately since continuing to arbitrate a claim that has become subject to article 40(2) or 59(2) risks producing an award vulnerable
August 20, 2026
Thai law contains no provision that speaks directly to what happens to an arbitration when one of the parties becomes insolvent. The interaction between arbitration and insolvency is derived instead from the general operation of two separately drafted laws: the Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 (1940) and the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002). Because Thai courts have had few opportunities to interpret how these two statutes apply together, the practical answer to many questions, such as who represents an insolvent party in arbitration, whether an award will be enforced, and what happens to a foreign proceeding, depends on inference from general principles of insolvency, arbitration, and procedural law rather than on settled rules. Liquidation and Restructuring The Bankruptcy Act governs both liquidation, which winds up a debtor’s affairs, and restructuring (rehabilitation), which aims to preserve a business. The consequences for arbitration differ accordingly. In liquidation, the debtor’s assets vest in the official receiver, who alone can conduct or continue any arbitration affecting the estate; the debtor loses the authority to act on its own behalf. In restructuring, the plan preparer or administrator takes over that role, but there is more room for the debtor to remain involved, since the objective of rehabilitation is to keep the business operational. Restructuring carries an automatic stay that takes effect once the Bankruptcy Court accepts the restructuring petition. This stay can halt an arbitration regardless of where it is seated. In contrast, liquidation does not work through a stay; instead, the debtor’s loss of authority over its own assets and disputes is what constrains the arbitration. Neither proceeding provides a party a formal route to apply for permission to continue arbitrating—the Bankruptcy Act contains no such mechanism—though in restructuring cases the Bankruptcy Court may allow proceedings to continue where doing so will not prejudice
August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
August 18, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments that would significantly expand know-your-customer (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) requirements for cash-related transactions at financial institutions (FIs) and specialized financial institutions (SFIs). Released on August 5, 2026, the proposed regulation would supersede BOT Notification No. 16/2569, which focused primarily on cash withdrawal transactions. The public comment period is open through September 3, 2026. The amendments reflect concerns that FIs and SFIs may be used to facilitate the movement, concealment, and conversion of criminal proceeds, potentially damaging institutional operations and public confidence in the financial system. Expanded Scope of Covered Transactions The most significant change is the broadening of the definition of “cash-related transactions.” Previously, the regulation covered only cash withdrawals and uncrossed check withdrawals. The amended regulation extends coverage to include: Cash deposits, check deposits, or receipt of funds from the public not in the form of deposit accounts; Thai baht (THB) banknote exchange (different denominations); Receipt of cash for issuing checks and drafts; and Purchase, sale, or exchange of foreign banknotes. Mandatory Identity Verification and Risk Management For all cash-related transactions, FIs and SFIs must require customers, or authorized or delegated persons, to present identification or verify their identity before every transaction, including one-time (walk-in) transactions. Specific identification requirements vary by transaction type, customer nationality, and channel (branch vs. electronic). FIs and SFIs must also establish comprehensive risk management processes and procedures for cash-related transactions. These requirements include identifying customers or authorized representatives in accordance with transaction-specific verification standards, analyzing customer behavior, implementing risk-management measures proportionate to the customer’s risk profile, and recording abnormal behavior in relevant systems. The BOT also encourages institutions to proactively guide customers toward transaction channels that offer greater traceability than cash. For corporate customers in high-risk business sectors—including foreign