What are you looking for?

Exit Mechanisms Available to a Shareholder

At least eight mechanisms are commonly used, or contractually engineered, to allow a shareholder to exit a Vietnamese company. Several others are available in narrower or less common circumstances. Each is summarized below, with its legal basis, how it works, and its principal limitation.

1. Private Sale or Transfer to a Third Party

The baseline exit route for any shareholder is a straightforward sale of shares (in a JSC) or assignment of a capital contribution (in an LLC) to a buyer of the shareholder’s own choosing. For a JSC, shares are, as a general rule, freely transferable, subject to statutory restrictions on founding shareholders’ ordinary shares during the first three years after incorporation and any restrictions set out in the charter (Law on Enterprises 2020 (LOE), Article 127; Article 120). For an LLC, a member’s contributed capital may not simply be withdrawn, but may be transferred: the member must first offer the capital contribution to the remaining members pro rata to their holdings, and may only sell to an outside party if the remaining members do not take up the offer in whole within 30 days (LOE, Article 52).

This route is the most flexible but also the least certain: it depends entirely on finding a willing buyer, agreeing a price, and (for an LLC) clearing the other members’ pre-emptive rights. It is the default exit mechanism against which all the more structured mechanisms below are typically layered.

2. Put Options (against the Company or Other Shareholders)

A put option gives the shareholder the contractual right — but not the obligation — to require a counterparty to buy its shares at a pre-agreed or formula-based price, usually upon a trigger event such as the non-occurrence of an IPO, a missed milestone, or a breach of covenant. The counterparty can be the company itself, in which case the option’s enforceability is constrained by the company’s own statutory share buyback and capital-maintenance rules, or another shareholder (typically a founder), in which case it operates as a private contractual obligation largely outside the scope of those corporate law constraints. Put options are examined in full depth, including their validity and enforceability, in Part 2 of this series.

3. Redeemable Preference Shares

Rather than relying on a separate put option contract layered over ordinary shares, a shareholder’s exit can be built directly into the share instrument itself. Under Article 114.1(b) and Article 118 of the LOE, a JSC may issue redeemable preference shares (cổ phần ưu đãi hoàn lại), which the company redeems on request of the holder or according to conditions fixed in the share certificate and the company’s charter at the time of issuance. Because the redemption right is a statutory attribute of the share class itself, rather than a separately negotiated contractual promise, it generally offers a more direct legal basis for exit than a bare put option against the company — at the cost of the shares typically carrying no voting rights and being treated, economically, closer to a debt-like instrument.

A generic put option promising that the company will buy back a shareholder’s ordinary shares does not, without more, convert those shares into this statutory class; the redeemable status has to be built into the charter and share certificate at issuance to attract Article 118 treatment.

4. Statutory Buyback / Capital Withdrawal Requests

Separately from redeemable preference shares, Vietnamese company law gives shareholders and members narrow, defined rights to compel the company to buy back their stake in specific circumstances, without needing any contractual put option at all.

• JSC — dissenting shareholder buyback (LOE, Article 132). A shareholder who voted against a resolution on the company’s reorganization, or on rights and obligations set out in the charter, may require the company to redeem its shares, generally within 10 days of the resolution being passed.
• JSC — buyback by the company’s own decision (LOE, Article 133). The company may itself decide to repurchase up to 30% of issued ordinary shares and all or part of issued preference shares, subject to General Meeting/Board approval and the payment conditions discussed below.
• LLC — buyback on dissent (LOE, Article 51). A member who votes against or formally protests a Members’ Council resolution amending the charter’s provisions on members’ rights and obligations, a reorganization, or other charter-specified matters, may require the company to redeem its capital contribution at market value or a charter-specified price.
• Payment condition common to all of the above. In every case, the company may only pay for the redeemed shares/capital contribution if, after payment, it remains able to pay all of its debts and other property obligations in full — a solvency test that protects creditors and effectively caps how much liquidity a shareholder can extract through these statutory routes (LOE, Articles 51, 134).

These statutory rights are valuable because they do not depend on any contract at all — but they are correspondingly narrow: they are available only in the specific circumstances the LOE lists (essentially, dissent from certain resolutions, or a company-initiated buyback within the 30% cap), not as a general-purpose exit tool.

5. IPO / Public Listing

An initial public offering converts a private shareholding into a listed, tradeable security, giving the shareholder access to a liquid secondary market rather than requiring a bespoke buyer. To publicly offer shares, a company must satisfy the conditions set out in the securities legislation — such as minimum charter capital, profitability track record, and governance requirements — and complete a registration process with the State Securities Commission before listing on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange, the Hanoi Stock Exchange, or trading on UPCoM.

An IPO is the most complete exit mechanism in principle, since it creates an ongoing market for the shares rather than a one-off transaction, but it is also the slowest and least certain: it depends on the company reaching a stage, and market conditions being favorable, for a public offering, and is accordingly used as a stated long-term objective in investment documents (often itself a put option trigger, per Section II.2 above) rather than a mechanism a shareholder can invoke unilaterally.

6. Co-Sale to a Third Party (Tag-Along)

A tag-along (co-sale) right allows a shareholder to participate in a sale that another shareholder is making to a third party, selling all or a pro rata portion of its own shares on the same terms rather than being left behind as a minority holder alongside a new, unknown owner. Tag-along rights are not a creature of the LOE; they exist only as a matter of contract, typically set out in a shareholders’ agreement (SHA), and bind only the parties to that agreement rather than the company or non-signatory shareholders.

For a JSC, a tag-along mechanism generally sits comfortably alongside the LOE’s default free-transferability rule. For a multi-member LLC, by contrast, a contractual tag-along needs to be reconciled carefully with the statutory transfer procedure in Article 52 — particularly the requirement to first offer the capital contribution to existing members — since the two can otherwise operate at cross purposes.

7. Drag-Along Rights

A drag-along right operates in the other direction: it allows a majority (or specified threshold of) shareholders who wish to sell to a third party to compel minority shareholders to sell their shares on the same terms, so the buyer can acquire the whole company rather than being left with an unwanted minority holdout. Like tag-along rights, drag-along rights are purely contractual under Vietnamese law — there is no statutory drag-along mechanism in the LOE — and must be set out in the SHA (or, ideally, reflected in the charter to bind non-signatory shareholders more securely) to be enforceable.

Because a drag-along compels an otherwise unwilling shareholder to sell, careful drafting of the triggering threshold, valuation mechanism, and notice procedure is particularly important; procedural shortcuts (for example, notifying minority holders only after a sale has effectively been agreed) are a common source of dispute in other jurisdictions and present the same risk under Vietnamese contract law principles.

8. Liquidation or Dissolution of the Company

Where the company itself is wound up — whether voluntarily (by shareholder/member resolution) or on other statutory grounds — shareholders exit by receiving a distribution of the company’s remaining assets after its debts, taxes, and liquidation expenses are settled, in accordance with the dissolution procedure set out in the LOE (Articles 207–213) and, where the company is insolvent rather than simply wound up voluntarily, the priority-of-payment rules under the Law on Bankruptcy. This is the exit mechanism of last resort: it ends the company’s existence entirely, distributes value strictly in order of statutory priority (creditors before shareholders, and preference shareholders typically before ordinary shareholders), and offers no certainty that shareholders will recover anything close to the value of their investment.

9. Other Exit Routes

Beyond the eight mechanisms above, several further routes can, depending on circumstances, allow a shareholder to exit:

• Sale of the whole company (trade sale/M&A). Rather than a single shareholder selling its own stake, all shareholders may exit together by selling 100% of the company to a strategic or financial buyer — often the outcome a drag-along right is designed to facilitate.
• Merger or consolidation (sáp nhập / hợp nhất). Under LOE Articles 200–201, a company may merge into, or consolidate with, another company; shareholders of the disappearing entity typically exit into cash, shares of the surviving/new entity, or a combination, as agreed in the merger/consolidation plan.
• Conversion and sale of convertible instruments. A holder of a convertible loan or convertible bond may convert into shares and then exit by one of the routes above, or, depending on the instrument’s terms, may be repaid in cash without ever converting.
• Pro rata capital reduction. A company may return part of its contributed capital to all shareholders on a pro rata basis (LOE, Article 112.5(a) for a JSC), reducing everyone’s holding proportionately rather than exiting a single shareholder — useful for a partial, non-discriminatory liquidity event but not a targeted individual exit.
• Enforcement of a share pledge. Where a shareholder has pledged its shares as security (for example, to secure a founder-level put option), enforcement of that pledge by the secured party can result in a transfer of the shares — an involuntary route from the pledging shareholder’s perspective, but a practical exit mechanism for the secured creditor.
• Distribution in bankruptcy. Where the company becomes insolvent, shareholders may receive a distribution (if anything remains after creditors are paid) through formal bankruptcy proceedings under the Law on Bankruptcy, rather than through the voluntary dissolution procedure described in Section 8 above.
• Inheritance, gift, or succession transfer. For an individual shareholder, shares or capital contributions may pass by inheritance or gift, which is not an “exit” in the commercial sense but is a further route by which a shareholding changes hands and should be addressed in the charter/SHA succession provisions.