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

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.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

October 30, 2025
Recent events at a Thai listed company, where a proposal to remove the director was not successful, amid claims that a competitor was attempting to gain control of the company, illustrate how disputes over corporate control can unfold differently at the board level and shareholder level. At the board level, removing directors of a listed company mid-term to gain corporate control is not an easy task under Thai law, as it requires a higher threshold than appointing a new director, which typically only requires a simple majority vote in a listed company. At the shareholder level, Thailand’s tender offer and competition regimes add complexity where different shareholder groups act in concert to remove opposing board representatives or otherwise influence control. In this article, we will explore why the attempted removal of a director may fail, and how the tender offer regime may apply. Key Issues at a Glance Shareholder groups may seek to convene meetings to propose changes to board composition or company authority. Such proposals can be delayed or complicated by regulatory requirements and the need for additional disclosures. Regulatory authorities and minority shareholders may raise concerns when major shareholders coordinate to influence board control, especially if such actions could trigger tender offer or merger control obligations. Companies often respond by seeking further information on shareholder relationships and potential conflicts before proceeding. Why the Director Removal Failed Under Section 76 of the Public Limited Companies Act B.E. 2535 (as amended), the early removal of a director requires two conditions to be satisfied at the same meeting of shareholders: Headcount test: At least 75% of shareholders attending and entitled to vote must vote in favor. If multiple shareholders appoint the same person as proxy, each proxy is counted as a separate head for the purpose of the headcount test,
October 24, 2025
On October 22, 2025, the Thai government posted a directive not to grant gambling licenses for gambling involving poker nationwide to crack down on illegal gambling activities. The directive was issued by Thailand’s Ministry of Interior to align with government policies to prevent the legalization of all types of gambling businesses, including poker as a sporting activity. This will result in the revocation of poker activities as sport and institute a strict ban on such activities nationwide. Businesses should note the new government’s strict approach toward gambling activities as the legal situation regarding gambling in the country continues to draw close attention.
October 1, 2025
In September 2025, Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) accused a company listed on the Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET), including its current and former directors, of concealing material information in connection with its filing registration and draft prospectus. This recent enforcement action demonstrates the serious consequences of making false statements or appearing to conceal material information in IPO filings and ongoing disclosures. In addition to being subject to criminal penalties, such actions can impact the eligibility of directors and executives to serve and may cause lasting reputational damage. Key Legal Risks The Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535 (1992) (as amended) imposes strict liability for making false statements or concealing material information in IPO registration statements and draft prospectuses. In such cases, investors can claim for damages, and there are also criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to five years and substantial fines, may apply to the company, its directors, and responsible officers. However, misstatements or omissions in IPO filings do not, by themselves, disqualify directors or executives from holding office, whether arising from an SEC accusation or even a final court judgment. In contrast, for ongoing disclosures after listing, such as financial statements, annual reports, and meeting notices, false or misleading statements or concealment of material information can result in not only criminal liability but also immediate disqualification of directors and executives. If the SEC accuses a listed company or its directors or executives of such misstatements or omissions, those directors or executives are immediately disqualified from their positions, even before a final court judgment. Director and Executive Qualifications Directors and executives must meet the SEC’s specified standards of trustworthiness, as set out in the relevant rules. The SEC clearly defines characteristics that are considered to demonstrate a lack of trustworthiness. For ongoing disclosures, being involved in
September 30, 2025
Vietnam’s higher education system is at a pivotal stage of reform, with the government taking decisive steps to strengthen its policy and regulatory framework. In response to obstacles encountered during the implementation of the Law on Higher Education, issued in 2012 and amended in 2018, the third draft of the amended Law on Higher Education (Draft Law) is scheduled for submission to the National Assembly in October 2025. The Draft Law reflects the state’s commitment to aligning the education sector with international standards while addressing persistent structural challenges. The Draft Law emphasizes clarifying institutional mandates, enhancing accountability, and modernizing governance models to enable higher education institutions to operate with greater autonomy and efficiency. Against this backdrop, we outline below several notable provisions of the third draft and their potential implications for higher education institutions (HEIs) in Vietnam. Applicable Entities In addition to HEIs as defined and covered under existing legislation, the Draft Law extends its scope of applicable entities. The current Law on Higher Education does not regulate training institutions under state agencies, the armed forces, or political and social organizations, nor does it provide specific provisions for institutions offering only postgraduate education. To address this, the Draft Law introduces the term “institutions with higher education activities,” expanding its scope to include: (a) academies and research institutes established by the prime minister, mandated to provide doctoral-level training; (b) educational institutions affiliated with state agencies, political organizations, socio-political organizations, and the people’s armed forces, authorized to offer higher education programs in their specialized fields; and (c) institutions established pursuant to international treaties or by decision of the prime minister, with authorization to deliver certain levels of higher education. The inclusion of “institutions with higher education activities” represents a significant development both legally and institutionally. In an increasingly diversified higher education