Key points when drafting a company charter to reduce disputes in Vietnam

Stephen Le, CEO and lead counsel of Le & Tran

Internal disputes rarely begin with one dramatic event. More often they begin quietly, in the gaps left by a company charter that was treated as a formality. In Vietnam, a well-drafted charter is not a filing document. It is one of the most effective preventive governance tools a company has.

For joint stock companies, limited liability companies, and especially foreign-invested enterprises, the charter defines who can do what, how decisions are made, and which mechanism applies if conflict becomes formal. A weak charter leaves room for dispute. A disciplined one closes that room before anyone thinks to exploit it.

Why the charter matters more than many businesses think

Many companies still treat the charter as a template to be submitted with the registration file and forgotten. That is a mistake. The charter is the company's internal rulebook: it sets the power structure, the voting mechanics, the limits of management authority.

When a dispute arises, shareholders, managers, courts, and arbitral tribunals all return to the charter. If it is generic, vague, or out of step with how the company actually operates, a clear interpretation becomes hard to defend. Many shareholder disputes do not begin in the meeting room. They begin in a charter that said too little.

Key drafting points to reduce disputes

1. Define governance structure and authority lines clearly. A good charter answers the basic questions with precision: which governance model applies, who decides what, and where each authority stops. Blurred lines cause conflict when the company faces a material decision on senior appointments, large assets, financing, or strategic change. Assign authority specifically; broad phrases such as “all matters not reserved to another body” often become dangerous in a dispute.

2. Build voting thresholds that are firm but workable. Distinguish ordinary decisions from reserved matters. Charter amendments, new share issuances, ownership restructuring, sale of major assets, mergers, demergers, dissolution, or a change of legal representative should normally require higher thresholds. At the same time, veto rights should not be so broad that one investor can paralyse the company once relationships deteriorate.

3. Be precise on capital contribution and non-payment. Many disputes arise not from commercial failure but because the capital structure was never properly documented. The charter should address contribution deadlines, acceptable asset types, valuation, transfer of title, and the consequences of delay or non-payment. If it is silent on how unpaid capital is treated, each side will later read that silence in its own favour.

4. Draft transfer rules with care. Few issues escalate conflict faster than who is allowed into the company. Specify whether shares or capital may be transferred to third parties, whether existing owners have pre-emptive rights, how long they have to respond, and how price is set in a disagreement. For businesses with foreign investors, transfer clauses must align with investment approvals, foreign ownership limits, and sector-specific restrictions.

5. Protect minority investors without destroying manageability. A charter that protects only the controlling group sows conflict, but one drafted too heavily towards minority protection can make the company impossible to run. Balance is the objective. Address information, meeting, and nomination rights, objection mechanisms, and protection against abusive related-party transactions. When minority investors believe they have no credible internal protection, they often move quickly towards litigation.

6. Tighten meeting procedures and resolution validity. A resolution can fail not because its substance is wrong, but because the notice, quorum, attendance, proxy process, vote counting, or minutes are defective. The charter should set out how notices are given, how much advance material is required, quorum rules for first and subsequent meetings, whether online meetings or written resolutions are allowed, and how proxies and records are handled.

7. Regulate related-party transactions and conflicts of interest. Many companies leave this underdeveloped, a serious weakness because it goes directly to whether value is being diverted from the company. Define which transactions must be disclosed, which require approval and by which body, whether interested persons may vote, and what disclosure duties apply to managers and controlling investors.

8. Anticipate deadlock before it happens. A strong charter is drafted for the moment the parties stop trusting one another. It can set a structured sequence: internal escalation, negotiation, mediation, buy-out options in prolonged deadlock, or referral to the agreed forum. It need not cover every commercial detail, but it should offer a functional response when governance stalls.

9. Keep the charter aligned with the shareholders' agreement. If the two documents pull in different directions, conflict surfaces the moment a right must be enforced. Decide carefully which points belong in the charter, because they bind the company at the constitutional level, and which belong in the shareholders' agreement because they are commercially detailed. The two should speak the same language.

10. Choose the dispute resolution path in advance. Many businesses only consider court or arbitration once the relationship has broken down, by which point it is often too late. Include an internal clause with a sensible sequence, negotiation, then mediation, then court or arbitration. Where the company has foreign investors or values confidentiality, the arbitration clause must be drafted clearly and consistently across all core documents.

When to review the charter

A company should not wait for a dispute to review its charter. The better moment is before a shift in control or structure: ahead of a fundraising round or new investor, before an M&A or ownership change, when replacing the legal representative, or when entering a regulated sector or taking on foreign investment. Early review is almost always cheaper than late-stage dispute management.

A strong charter is not the longest one. It is the one that anticipates likely conflict early and addresses it in language that is clear, balanced, and workable. For companies in Vietnam, particularly those with multiple investor groups or foreign investment, that is worth serious attention from the outset. As a Vietnamese dispute resolution law firm, Le & Tran reviews charters to identify the clauses most likely to generate conflict and resolve them before they reach a boardroom or a courtroom.

MAE proposes amendments to 10 laws to cut red tape The Ministry of Agriculture and Environment is proposing to add the draft law amending and supplementing several articles of 10 laws in the fields of agriculture and environment to the national legislative programme.

Businesses contribute to draft amended Customs Law The Vietnam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, in coordination with the Customs Department under the Ministry of Finance, on June 11, organised a workshop to gather business opinions on the draft law amending and supplementing several articles of the Customs Law.

Amendments to Securities Law aim to modernise capital market framework The Ministry of Finance is continuing to refine the draft Law amending and supplementing several articles of the Securities Law, with a view to submitting it to the 16th National Assembly’s second session, scheduled for October.