1. What is the applicable legislation? The Law on Investment 2020 (Investment Law 2020), which has been in force since 1 January 2021, is the primary legislation governing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Vietnam. Several implementing decrees have also been issued to help guide the Investment Law’s implementation, including the Guidelines on the implementation of the Law on Investment 2020, Decree No. 31/2021/ND-CP, dated 26 March 2021 (Decree 31 2021), providing guidance on the implementation of a number of articles of the Law on Investment. The Investment Law and its implementing decrees outline the scope, administration and applicable licensing framework for foreign investment in Vietnam. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Planning and Investment (MPI) is the leading regulator of FDI in Vietnam, mainly through its specific agencies—the Business Registration Agency and the Foreign Investment Agency. The MPI cooperates with the relevant line ministries governing each sector and supervises the provincial Departments of Planning and Investment (each, a

NOTE—to see whether notification thresholds in Vietnam and throughout the world are met, see further: Where to Notify. 1. Have there been any recent developments regarding the Vietnamese merger control regime and are any updates/developments expected in the coming year? Are there any other ‘hot’ merger control issues in Vietnam? On 18 May 2026, the Government of Vietnam issued Resolution No. 66.18/2026/NQ-CP on the decentralization, reduction and simplification of administrative procedures and business conditions (Resolution 66.18), which introduced, among other things, notable changes to the merger filing thresholds for non-specific sectors. Accordingly, Resolution No. 66.18 doubles the financial thresholds triggering mandatory economic concentration notifications previously prescribed under Decree No. 35/2020/ND-CP detailing a number of articles of the Competition Law 2018 (Decree 35). Accordingly, the new thresholds are as follows: • total assets or turnover in Vietnam of any party (including its respective group) are VND 6 trillion or more • the value of the transaction is VND 2 trillion or more (this threshold only applies where the transaction takes place within Vietnam), or • the combined market share is 20% or more Please

Arbitration analysis: The Hanoi People’s Court recently overturned a lower court’s judgment in a lawsuit against an arbitration center, highlighting jurisdictional errors and a misidentification of the dispute’s nature. For lawyers in Vietnam, pinpointing the correct courts for matters involving commercial arbitration is crucial. It is equally important to distinguish between the responsibilities of arbitration centers and arbitrators in legal proceedings. While arbitration centers provide administrative support services, it is the arbitrators who resolve disputes. Arbitration centers are not liable for non-contractual damages unless they fail to perform their administrative duties properly. Arbitrators, on the other hand, are only accountable if they impose unrequested or excessive interim relief measures. This case underscores the importance of understanding these distinctions to navigate the legal landscape effectively. Written by Ha Manh Tu, senior legal counsel at Huawei Technologies (Vietnam) Co, Ltd.

Arbitration analysis: The People's Court of Hanoi has shaken the arbitration community in Vietnam with its controversial decision to annul an arbitral award of the Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC). The court held that the arbitral tribunal had breached arbitration procedural rules by accepting foreign documents without consular legalisation and by rejecting the request for judicial examination of signatures on these documents. This decision casts doubt on the role and value of arbitration in Vietnam and poses a serious threat to the enforceability of arbitral awards. The decision may affect the confidence and trust of parties, especially foreign investors, who choose arbitration to resolve their disputes in Vietnam. The decision may also create uncertainty and unpredictability for the arbitration system in Vietnam and hinder its development and promotion as a viable alternative to court litigation. Written by Ha Manh Tu, senior legal counsel at Huawei Technologies (Vietnam) Co, Ltd.

This Practice Note is part of a multi-jurisdictional guide addressing essential aspects of forming specific business entities in global jurisdictions. Leading law firms in the Multilaw global law firm network answer key questions on this topic. This guide discusses key considerations when forming a single-member limited liability company in Vietnam. Current as of 13 January 2023. Author: Thomas Treutler, Tilleke & Gibbins, a Multilaw member firm Common entities 1. What form of entity is the subject of this questionnaire? What other forms of entities are commonly used in this jurisdiction and are the subject of another questionnaire response? The subject of this response is the single-member limited liability company (SLLC) – Công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn một thành. viên (commonly abbreviated as Công Ty TNHH MTV or Công Ty TNHH). 2. Identify other types of entities in your jurisdiction that exist but will not be the subject of a questionnaire response at this time • Multiple-member limited liability company (MLLC)—Công ty trách nhiệm hữu hạn hai thành viên trở lên (commonly abbreviated as Công Ty TNHH) • Joint-stock company (JSC)—Công

MLex: European companies have been asked for their comments on the operation of the EU's data protection framework, as the EU's executive arm is set to look at the performance of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) since its introduction in 2018. The public consultation collecting views for the evaluation report is open until 8 February 2024.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has published a concept paper for the development of a guideline on the demonstration of therapeutic equivalence (TE) for nasal products. As current guidelines on inhalation products do not adequately deal with nasal products, the EMA seeks to publish a guideline on TE for nasal medicinal products which would detail the data requirements for demonstrating TE between nasal products containing the same active moiety. Comments on the concept paper can be submitted until 31 October 2024.

The European Commission has called for feedback on the draft Implementing Regulation establishing the criteria and indicators for the common methodology to calculate flight emissions, which will be used in the voluntary labelling scheme for flights created under Regulation (EU) 2023/2405 (the ReFuelEU Aviation Regulation). Comments can be submitted until 22 October 2024 (midnight Brussels time).

Ofcom has launched a consultation on its proposed amendments to the Ofcom Site Engineering Code for Analogue Radio Broadcast Transmission Systems, which has been in force since 2013. Ofcom proposes to change the name of the Code to the ‘Analogue Radio Technical Code’, align the Code wording to ensure it is consistent with that included in the Digital Radio Technical Code to clarify that responsibility for commissioning and acceptance of transmitter equipment rests with radio licensees who must arrange for suitably qualified personnel to carry out that work, and require analogue radio broadcasters to consider the end-to-end resilience of their services. Responses should be submitted by 22 March 2024.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 22 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary Case facts Outline Article 102 TFEU investigation into Vifor for alleged disparagement of Vifor’s closest competing treatment in Europe for intravenous iron treatment, Pharmacosmos' Monofer (AT.40577). Latest development On 22 July 2024, the Commission accepted commitments from Vifor (see details below), and therefore closed its investigation. Parties • Vifor Pharma Ltd (Vifor). Vifor is a global pharmaceutical company, part of the biotechnology group CSL, that develops, manufactures and markets worldwide pharmaceutical products to treat iron deficiency, nephrology and cardio-renal therapies.  Background On 20 June 2022, the Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Vifor may have restricted competition by illegally disparaging its closest competitor in Europe on the market for intravenous iron treatment, Pharmacosmos.On 8 April 2024, the Commission adopted a Preliminary Assessment summarising the main facts of the case and identifying the preliminary competition concerns.On 19 April 2024, the Commission

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 23 May 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline CMA Chapter II CA98 investigation into Vifor for allegedly abusing its dominant position by misleadingly disparaging a competing iron treatment. Latest developments On 10 December 2024, the CMA issued launched a consultation on proposed commitments offered by Vifor (see further below). The consultation ends on 17 January 2025. Parties • Vifor Pharma (Vifor): Vifor is a global pharmaceutical

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has accepted final commitments from Vifor Pharma on 23 May 2025, addressing concerns about its abuse of dominance in the supply of intravenous (IV) iron deficiency treatments for NHS patients in the UK. Vifor has committed to making a payment of £23 million to healthcare systems across the four nations, following concerns that its claims could have had an adverse financial impact on the NHS. It has also agreed to write to healthcare providers to correct any potentially misleading communications regarding the safety of competing product Monofer, produced by Pharmacosmos, and its own product Ferinject. In addition, Vifor will introduce several measures to prevent the dissemination of misleading information in the future.