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

July 25, 2025

Navigating Key Updates of Vietnam’s Amended Law on Enterprises

On June 17, 2025, the National Assembly of Vietnam adopted Law No. 76/2025/QH15 (Amended LOE) amending and supplementing the 2020 Law on Enterprises, which aims to reshape the legal framework to enhance transparency and alignment with international standards. The Amended LOE took effect from July 1, 2025.

Below are key notes on the Amended LOE.

Recognition of Beneficial Owners

The beneficial owner (BO) concept was previously addressed under Vietnam’s anti-money laundering framework. However, the formal recognition of a BO in the Amended LOE marks a pivotal advancement in embedding ownership transparency into corporate governance, in line with the G7 Financial Action Task Force’s standards on anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing.

Under the Amended LOE and Decree No. 168/2025/ND-CP of the government dated June 30, 2025, on enterprise registration (Decree 168), a BO is identified through either equity ownership or control rights.

  • Equity ownership: Individuals holding 25% or more of a company’s charter capital or voting shares, either directly or indirectly, qualify as BOs. Indirect ownership is further defined as ownership of at least 25% of charter capital or voting shares through an intermediary organization.
  • Control rights: Individuals with the authority to make or influence major decisions are considered BOs. The actual control over a company includes the power (i) to appoint or remove most or all members of the board of directors or the members’ council or the general director of a company; (ii) to amend the charter; or (iii) to decide other key matters specified in the company’s charter. Notably, individuals representing state ownership in state-owned enterprises are excluded from the scope of the BO concept.

Companies are responsible for collecting, updating, and retaining information about BOs and cooperating with authorities when requested to identify BOs, among other obligations. Additionally, any companies registered before July 1, 2025, must submit a list of their BOs when updating or registering changes to their enterprise registration contents, unless they opt to provide an earlier notification.

Companies and their founders are required to declare BO information when (i) individuals or entities hold 25% or more of the voting shares in a joint-stock company, (ii) individuals own 25% or more capital contribution, or (iii) individuals have control rights. Decree 168’s guidance on “control rights” creates uncertainty, as determining who qualifies as a BO depends heavily on each company’s charter and specific decision-making powers. Additionally, control exercised indirectly makes it difficult to trace the actual individual behind corporate decisions. Therefore, the BO declaration will need further guidance from the competent authorities.

Re-definition of Market Price

The Amended LOE amended the definition of “market price” to provide clearer guidelines for listed shares, specifying a new method based on the average trading price over 30 days before valuation. The existing methods of determination of the market price under the 2020 Law on Enterprises remain unchanged.

These updates aim to standardize the valuation of shares and capital contributions and strengthen the credibility of registered capital figures.

Debt-to-Equity Cap for Private Bond Placement

To address regulatory gaps and heightened concerns over investor protection and financial stability in the bond market, the Amended LOE adds a new financial condition for private placements of bonds by non-publicly listed companies. The bond issuers’ total liabilities (including the bonds to be issued) must not exceed five times the equity as reflected in the latest audited financial statements. Importantly, this leverage cap applies exclusively to corporate bonds and does not extend to other privately issued debt instruments (such as debentures or promissory notes).

This new requirement does not apply to (i) state-owned enterprises, entities issuing bonds to fund real estate projects, credit institutions, insurers, reinsurers, insurance brokers, securities firms, and fund managers; and (ii) bond issuances disclosed to the stock exchange before July 1, 2025.

These reforms reflect a broader effort of lawmakers to restore investors’ trust, promote responsible capital raising, and safeguard the integrity of Vietnam’s financial markets.

Redemption of Redeemable Preference Shares

Previously, given the lack of specific legal procedures, licensing authorities were reluctant to approve capital reduction in cases where joint stock companies redeem redeemable preference shares (RPS). To solve this practical obstacle, the Amended LOE explicitly specifies the procedures for joint stock companies to decrease their charter capital after redeeming the RPS and returning capital to RPS holders

This amendment aims to streamline the licensing procedures in case of RPS redemption and promote operational flexibility. This is likely beneficial for investors seeking liquidity or exit rights tied to specific share classes, as it reinforces the viability of redeemable instruments within Vietnam’s corporate framework.

False Declaration of Charter Capital

False declaration of charter capital is prohibited, but is not explicitly defined, under the 2020 Law on Enterprises, resulting in inconsistent interpretations and enforcement by the competent authorities in practice. The Amended LOE provides a clear definition of “false declaration of charter capital” to clarify as either (i) failure to fully contribute the registered charter capital by the statutory deadline without registering a decrease in the declared amount; or (ii) intentional mis-valuation of assets contributed as capital in kind.

The reform aims to provide a clear legal basis to identify and penalize prohibited actions (such as false declaration of charter capital), prevent the formation of shell companies, and reduce risks of fraud and money laundering.

Outlook

The Amended LOE enhances transparency and regulatory oversight, aiming to boost foreign investor confidence, streamline compliance for businesses, and strengthen enforcement capabilities for regulators.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

December 20, 2024
With intellectual property playing an ever-increasing role in economic development, the need to harness, promote, and protect ASEAN innovation remains urgent as integration progresses. Among its objectives, the ASEAN Economic Community aims to transform the region into a hub of innovation and competitiveness and ensure that the region remains an active participant in the international IP community. With ASEAN member states increasing IP generation and further committing to global IP regimes, the region is increasingly looking toward sophisticated IP ownership and holding structures. IP Holding Companies ASEAN-based companies continue to centralize ownership of their IP assets in offshore holding and licensing vehicles—an approach multinational companies headquartered elsewhere have been using for a number of years. IP-intensive companies look to locate their IP portfolios in low-tax jurisdictions with strong IP registration and protection laws. The company then licenses the IP to operating companies in the group or to third-party licensees, franchisees, agents, distributors, and other partners in return for royalties or license fees. These special-purpose vehicles are typically referred to as IP holding companies. IP holding companies are popular because they can help corporations minimize tax, gain tax benefits or concessions, protect IP from bankruptcy or other claims against the parent company, and focus management attention on the IP portfolio as an income generator. Tax and IP Holding Companies Tax is the primary reason most companies park their IP in separate IP holding vehicles. Sometimes, companies choose to establish their IP holding company in a no-tax, low-tax, or preferred-tax jurisdiction close to their home country. The selected jurisdiction should also be a country with a large and well-established tax treaty network. Double taxation treaties are key considerations in jurisdiction shopping. If the IP assets need to be pledged as security for future borrowings or if they are to be included
December 4, 2024
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam chapters to Restructuring in Southeast Asia, a comparative guide produced by Drew Network Asia (DNA). The publication outlines the principal debt restructuring processes available to corporate debtors across nine Southeast Asian jurisdictions and provides an accessible overview for lenders, creditors, and companies navigating financial distress in the region. Structured in a question-and-answer format, each jurisdictional chapter addresses the same core topics, allowing readers to compare approaches across markets. The guide covers key issues such as available restructuring mechanisms, court-supervised and out-of-court options, the roles and powers of creditors, and the implications of restructuring on ongoing business operations. As with other DNA resources, the guide aims to provide practical orientation rather than exhaustive analysis. Legislative developments and jurisdiction-specific considerations may affect the applicability of certain procedures, and readers requiring tailored advice are encouraged to contact the practitioners listed at the end of each chapter. The full guide is available for download using the button below or directly from the DNA website.
December 4, 2024
Thailand Legal Basics, a valuable primer for foreign investors, explores all aspects of living and doing business in Thailand. Written by specialists at Tilleke & Gibbins in Bangkok, it is the only comprehensive English-language guide to the Thai legal system with a focus on the concerns of foreign business and investment.
November 27, 2024
In Thailand, a business rehabilitation plan in court-supervised rehabilitation proceedings is a crucial element of the business rehabilitation process that outlines how a debtor’s assets will be managed. It also provides guidance for resolving a debtor’s business challenges so that the business can survive and continue to generate returns, increasing the likelihood that its creditors will be repaid. Key Plan Components The Bankruptcy Act B.E. 2483 sets forth the following components to be covered in a rehabilitation plan: The reasons for rehabilitation; Details about the debtor’s assets, liabilities, and other binding obligations at the time the court-ordered rehabilitation; Principles and methods of the rehabilitation; Redemption of collateral when there are secured creditors and guarantor liabilities; Ways to resolve problems arising from a temporary lack of liquidity during plan implementation; Action to be taken when a claim or debt is assigned; Name, qualifications, and letter of consent of the plan administrator, as well as information on compensation; Appointment and release of the plan administrator; Period in which the plan will be implemented (maximum of five years); and Refusal of the debtor’s assets or refusal of contractual rights if the debtor’s assets or contractual rights have obligations that exceed the benefits they yield. Considering the diverse nature and challenges of each debtor’s business, the details listed here are only general guidelines for what should be included in a rehabilitation plan. The planner has the flexibility to create a plan with different details or guidelines than those outlined above to best suit the nature and challenges of the debtor’s business. The planner can also omit some of the mentioned requirements if they are not relevant to the debtor’s business. Concerns of Relevance Court approval of the rehabilitation plan. Once the plan is approved by a meeting of the creditors, it is necessary