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

Subscribe to Updates

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 Professionals

Practices

Banking and Finance

Corporate/M&A

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

March 5, 2026
Amid increasing financial globalization, Vietnam’s establishment of an International Financial Center (IFC) represents a strategic initiative to attract high-quality foreign investment and enhance the country’s position in the global financial system. In support of this objective, a Specialized Court was introduced under Resolution No. 222/2025/QH15 as a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism within the IFC framework. The Specialized Court at the IFC was subsequently operationalized by Law on the Specialized Court No. 150/2025/QH15, effective from January 1, 2026. Organizational Structure of the Specialized Court The Specialized Court at the IFC is a court within the system of the People’s Courts, organized and operating in accordance with the Law on the Specialized Court, and vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate and resolve cases at the IFC. The Specialized Court is located in Ho Chi Minh City and comprises (i) a Court of First Instance; (ii) a Court of Appeal, and (iii) a supporting apparatus. Jurisdiction of the Specialized Court The jurisdiction of the Specialized Court at the IFC is strictly defined based on both (i) the subject matter of the cases and (ii) the membership status of the parties involved. Specifically, the Specialized Court has jurisdiction over (except for cases involving public interests or the interests of the state) the following: Disputes arising from investment and business activities. Requests for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and foreign arbitral awards. Requests related to dispute resolution by arbitration. Other disputes directly related to investment and business activities (to be specified by the Supreme People’s Court). Additionally, at least one party in the case must be a member of the IFC. The IFC’s membership status is established through registration, recognition as a member, or the grant of a license for establishment and operation within the IFC. In the
Read More
February 27, 2026
The Bank of Thailand (BOT) has officially implemented a new regulatory framework supervising systemically important retail payment systems (SIRPS), effective February 21, 2026, with PromptPay being the first payment system designated as a SIRPS. Under this new set of regulations, the BOT may designate payment systems under the Payment Systems Act B.E. 2560 (2017) as SIRPSs based on quantitative and qualitative assessments. Once a system is designated as a SIRPS, the operator becomes subject to expanded supervisory obligations beyond the general requirements of the Payment Systems Act. Enhanced Supervisory Requirements SIRPS operators must comply with a heightened supervisory regime across three key areas, outlined below. 1. Governance SIRPS operators must maintain robust and transparent governance structures, including: Balanced board composition, with at least one-third of the board comprising independent directors who represent stakeholders in the system (such as payment service providers, consumers, and experts). Independent directors may serve for no more than two consecutive terms. Subcommittees to assist the board in overseeing compliance, policy implementation, and operational strategy. Clear separation between executives responsible for risk and information security and those overseeing day-to-day business operations. Risk Management and System SecuritySIRPS operators must implement comprehensive risk management frameworks, including: Clear service agreements between the SIRPS operator and its direct participants (payment service providers who connect directly to the SIRPS), defining roles and responsibilities among stakeholders. These agreements must include obligations for direct SIRPS participants to supervise any indirect participants they onboard to ensure compliance with service agreements and business rules. A business continuity plan covering both IT and non-IT aspects, with annual review. The SIRPS must target service availability comparable to international payment infrastructures, including the ability to recover operations within two hours of a disruption and to maintain scalable operational capacity. Tools and controls to monitor and manage material or
Read More
February 25, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has updated the Vietnam chapter in the newly released Licensing 2026 guide, published by Lexology Panoramic. The comparative guide provides companies and other interested readers with information on licensing law and practice in various countries around the world. Licensing 2026 provides detailed information on the following topics: Restrictions, laws and licensing arrangements Intellectual property issues: Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, contesting the validity of licensor’s IP rights, invalidity and expiry of IP rights, security interests, proceedings against third parties, sublicensing, jointly owned IP, first to file, scope of patent protection, trade secrets, copyright Software licensing: Perpetual licensing, legal requirements, user restrictions Royalties and payments, currency conversion, and taxes: Relevant legislation, restrictions, taxation of foreign licensors Competition law issues: Restrictions on trade, legal restrictions, and IP-related court rulings Indemnification, disclaimers, and damages: Prevalence and enforceability of indemnity provisions and contractual waivers of damages Termination: Right to terminate, impact of termination Bankruptcy: Impact of licensee or licensor bankruptcy Dispute resolution: Governing law, arbitration, enforceability, injunctive relief, contractual waivers The Vietnam chapter is available below as a PDF. Readers can gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Licensing 2026 guide and the rest of Lexology Panoramic’s varied offerings through this link.
Read More
February 19, 2026
Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has overhauled its approach to related-party transactions (RPTs) by issuing new rules that simplify approval processes while expanding oversight. Capital Market Supervisory Board Notification No. TorJor. 46/2568 will replace the longstanding Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551, which has governed RPT compliance for over a decade. The new regulation takes effect on July 1, 2026. Any RPT matters approved by a company’s board of directors or approved for shareholders’ approval before that date remain subject to Notification No. TorJor. 21/2551. The new RPT rules will introduce significant changes that market participants should carefully consider. Consolidated Definitions Under the previous framework, key definitions relevant to RPT compliance were dispersed across multiple sources, including SEC notifications, Stock Exchange of Thailand (SET) regulations, and provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act (before amendments). The new regulation consolidates these definitions into a single notification. Concepts such as “related party” and “connected person,” as well as relevant transaction categories, are now more systematically organized and written in greater detail. The SET has yet to issue corresponding regulations, which should include more detailed related disclosure requirements. Unified Threshold and Mandatory Board Approval The most significant change under the new regulation is the elimination of the multitiered approval framework based on transaction type. Instead of various categories, transactions are now classified as either (1) financial assistance provided to related persons, or (2) other RPTs in order to determine the level of corporate approvals and disclosures for each transaction size in these categories, but the concept remains the same. Under the previous regulation, RPTs were divided into small, medium, and large transactions, with differing approval requirements. The new regulation effectively merges the small and medium categories. As a result, all RPTs must now be approved by the board of directors as a baseline
Read More