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

March 2, 2021

Vietnam Issues Guidance on Business Registration under New Law on Enterprises

Informed Counsel

When Vietnam’s new Law on Enterprises of 2020 (2020 LOE) came into effect on January 1, 2021, the implementing regulations for corporate matters guiding the now-repealed Law on Enterprises of 2014 ceased their effectiveness, per principles under the laws on promulgation of legislative documents. As a result, governmental bodies and enterprises have been awaiting the issuance of new implementing regulations that will apply to the 2020 LOE.

The first major guidance arrived on January 4, 2021, when the government issued Decree No. 01/2021/ND-CP on enterprise registration (Decree 01), which replaces Decree No. 78/2015/ND-CP dated September 14, 2015 (Decree 78) on the same matter. This article discusses some notable points of Decree 01 in comparison to Decree 78.

Operating Status of Enterprises

Decree 01 sets out seven possible legal statuses under which an established enterprise may be classified in its profile on the National Business Registration Portal (NBRP), which is available for public access:

  1. Active;
  2. Business temporarily suspended;
  3. No longer in business at the registered address;
  4. Enterprise registration certificate revoked due to decision issued by tax authority;
  5. In dissolution process, divided, merged, or acquired;
  6. In bankruptcy process; and
  7. Dissolved, bankrupt, or ceased to exist.

By default, the status of a company is active. The status will be updated to one of the other options in the NBRP when the respective licensing procedures are completed at the provincial Department of Planning and Investment (e.g., for temporary suspension of business or initiation of dissolution process), or according to the decision of the relevant authorities (e.g., for bankruptcy).

The previous Decree 78 did not provide detail on the available status options. The common statuses observed on the NBRP before the enactment of Decree 01 were “active,” “business temporarily suspended,” “locked” (akin to the current “in dissolution process”), and “dissolved.”

This change will make it easier for a third party to identify the operating status of a target company for a potential acquisition, legal due diligence, and so forth.

Signing of Application Documents by Legal Representative

For limited liability companies and joint stock companies with multiple legal representatives, documents for licensing purposes can be signed by any of the legal representatives, provided they undertake that they are doing so in accordance with their assigned duties as set out under Article 12.2 of the 2020 LOE, which requires that if there are multiple legal representatives, the charter of the company must specify the rights and obligations of each legal representative. If there is no such specification, each and every legal representative is considered a duly authorized person of the company vis-à-vis a third party.

The assurance that the legal representative signing the application documents is doing so in accordance with these provisions may aim to eliminate any responsibility of the licensing authorities who receive such documents if any wrongdoing of the signatory is uncovered after the application is approved.

Further, affixing the corporate seal is now optional for the prescribed forms, decisions, and meeting minutes that are required to be submitted in the application dossier. Other supporting documents may still need to be stamped if required under relevant laws.

For documents for non-licensing purposes such as contracts, strictly viewed, the signatory (for example, a legal representative) can only sign on those which are duly conferred to him or her under the charter of the company or otherwise. However, it is worth noting that the Civil Code of 2015, to a large extent, introduced the doctrine of apparent authority to recognize the validity of contracts which have been entered into by unauthorized persons.

Temporary Suspension of Business

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic forced many companies in Vietnam to temporarily suspend operations due to government restrictions (e.g., restaurants and theaters), lack of customers (e.g., travel companies and hotels), or other reasons, calling new attention to the regulations on business suspension.

Under previous regulations, an enterprise could apply for multiple periods of temporary suspension of up to one year each. However, the maximum consecutive duration of temporary suspension for a business, including any extensions, could not exceed two years.

This limit appears to have been lifted, as the maximum two-year period is no longer provided in Decree 01. In other words, an applicant can apply any number of times, each time with a one-year limit, for a temporary suspension of business.

Once an enterprise has notified the business registration office of its temporary suspension of business, such status will be updated on the NBRP for the company and all of its dependent units (branches, representative offices, business locations). It is worth noting, however, that even if an enterprise has properly suspended its business, it is still required to honor its due obligations (financial and other) under the relevant contracts or laws.

Business Registration Offices

Previously, in Decree 78, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City were given autonomy to open up to two additional business registration offices, apart from the customary office. Decree 01 abolishes this provision without giving a reason. Though the consequences of this are uncertain, it might lead to some backlog in the business registration offices of these major cities in the short term.

Outlook

New laws and regulations on companies and investment in Vietnam are issued at a fairly rapid pace, replacing the old versions. This causes certain concerns among businesses and lawyers about the lack of stability of legislation and well as the time and resources to follow the new legislation. However, one of the key notable bright spots of the change is the new legislation normally brings more flexibility and options for businesses. The foregoing changes in Decree 01 are a clear example.

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