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

June 5, 2019

Moving Employees from a Rep. Office to a Foreign-Invested Enterprise in Vietnam

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

In recent years in Vietnam, new policies and changes in the law have led to many situations where foreign companies are no longer allowed to operate as representative offices (ROs), or find that it is no longer optimal to do so. As a result, many companies are converting or considering the conversion of their ROs into full subsidiaries or “foreign-invested enterprises” (FIEs). This has been an especially hot topic in the pharmaceutical sector after changes brought on in 2017 by new legislation.   

Establishing an FIE can open up new business opportunities and is recommended for companies with serious long-term commitments to Vietnam, but the shift from RO to FIE can pose its share of challenges, particularly in the area of labor and employment. A clear understanding of the conversion process will help ensure a smooth transition.

Representative Offices: A Good Place to Start   

ROs are very common as a first step when foreign companies enter the Vietnam market. The RO is a quick and relatively simple way to get started, and allows the company to explore the market and establish relationships with Vietnamese businesses (distributors, agents, etc.) without a massive outlay of investment capital.

The problem with the RO is that it is only allowed to conduct a limited scope of business activities under the law. Specifically, ROs are not permitted to “directly engage in profit-making activity in Vietnam.” Though such activity is not clearly defined in the law, it is understood to mean that the RO cannot provide goods or services to distributors or consumers, or collect money from them. The RO is meant to be merely a liaison office for its foreign parent company.   

Though ROs have been known to find creative ways of “doing business without doing business,” most companies with serious interest in the Vietnam market will eventually choose to establish FIEs in the form of limited liability companies or joint-stock companies. FIEs are allowed to conduct a much greater scope of business activities than ROs, including profit-making activities, though the licensing process is correspondingly longer and more complicated.

For some companies, the establishment of an FIE is more a necessity than a choice. For example, in the pharmaceutical sector, with the effectiveness of Decree 54/2017/ND-CP dated May 8, 2017, guiding the Law on Pharmacy (as amended) and its implementation documents, it became clear that ROs of foreign pharmaceutical companies could no longer directly employ medical representatives who conduct drug introduction activities to healthcare professionals without valid medical representative cards formally issued by the provincial department of health under the name of the RO. In turn, the provincial departments of health will no longer issue those cards to ROs, or renew the RO’s existing cards, which has effectively rendered the practice impossible. As a result, these companies have been “urged” to set up their own FIEs, not only to conduct actual pharmaceutical business in Vietnam in the long run, but also to receive the medical representatives and other staff from their ROs.

Moving Employees to the FIE   

In theory, once an FIE is successfully established, the RO’s employees can be moved to the FIE, and the foreign investor can officially close the RO, though the procedure is not always so simple. In the pharmaceutical sector, for example, the RO may need to be maintained in parallel with the FIE for a certain period of time to ensure the smooth operations of the FIE as well as the drug export-import activity.   

To move employees from the RO to the FIE, labor contracts between the RO and the employees must be terminated. To ensure a smooth migration, that should be structured as a mutual termination agreement, pursuant to which no involvement from the local labor authority or the trade union is required. A termination notice must be prepared, along with minutes of termination and liquidation of the labor contract.   

To let employees go who do not agree to the mutual termination, the RO will need to prepare a “labor usage plan” to describe the situation and clearly demonstrate that the termination of the labor relationship is necessary to comply with the law. The labor usage plan must be submitted to/discussed with the appropriate-level trade union for its consideration and approval. This procedure can be rather time-consuming as Vietnamese labor law is very protective of employees and the trade unions, especially the district trade union federations, will review the labor usage plan very carefully to ensure there are no contents viewed as unfair to the impacted employees. Thus, it is always better to attempt to reach agreement on mutual termination, even if it requires additional expense.   

The termination package provided to the RO’s departing employees will typically include:

  • salary accrued up until the termination date;
  • a prorated portion of any 13th month salary (commonly provided in labor contracts in Vietnam);
  • unused annual leave; and
  • statutory severance allowance, where applicable.

An additional payment may be negotiated by the parties to be offered as “goodwill,” and is typically determined by the seniority of the employee—for example, the employee may receive one-half month’s or one month’s salary for each year of employment.   

The RO must then ensure that all insurance and tax obligations are fulfilled. The former employees must be deregistered with the social insurance body, and all social insurance premiums and income personal income tax for the employees must be paid up to the contract termination date.   

On the FIE side, the newly established entity will sign new employment contracts with the migrated employees. In practice, the terms of these contracts should be at least as favorable as the terms in the previous contracts with the RO.   

The FIE can then register the migrated employees with the social insurance body and begin paying premiums for them, and also declare the employees with the tax authority, in order to assume their personal income tax obligations.

Planning Ahead   

Navigating Vietnamese labor law can be a challenge for foreign companies, as the country tends to be more protective of employees than many other jurisdictions, and requires strict adherence to formal protocol. Companies who make the decision to convert their ROs in Vietnam to FIEs would be wise to set out a step-by-step employee migration plan in advance, with the assistance of experienced advisors, to ease the transition and ensure business continuity.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Location

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
Read More
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
Read More
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.
Read More
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
Read More