Vertical merger under Vietnamese competition law
A merger between two companies whose “combined market share” (thị phần kết hợp) is between 30% to 50% in the relevant market is subject to a merger filing under Article 20.1 of the Competition Law. Combined market share means the total “market share” in the relevant market of the companies participating in a merger. Market share of a company with respect to a certain type of goods or services means the percentage of turnover from sales of such company over the total turnover of all companies conducting business in such type of goods or services in the relevant market or the percentage of turnover of inwards purchases of such company over the total turnover of inwards purchases of all companies conducting business in such type of goods or services in the relevant market for a month, quarter or year.
There has been an argument that reference to “market share” in the Competition Law suggest that each company to a merger must have “market share” in the relevant market. As such, the merger filing requirements under Vietnamese competition law only apply to horizontal merger between two companies in the same relevant market (e.g. two car makers) and do not apply to vertical merger between two companies in two different but related markets (a car maker and a car dealer).
However, technically, Article 20.1 of the Competition Law can still apply to a vertical merger if the company operating in one relevant market is deemed to have 0% “market share” in the other relevant market. If this is the case then the combined market share in a relevant market in a vertical merger is still between 30% to 50% of such relevant market which will trigger a merger filing requirement.
Vietnam’s housing market has experienced rapid growth in recent years, driven by urbanization, economic development, and increasing demand. A shortage in housing supply in some big cities currently has prompted policymakers to enhance land policies to unlock resources for housing project development. As new Land Law 2024 seems to fall short in resolving the land supply constraints for residential development, on 30 November 2024, the National Assembly adopted Resolution 171 on piloting implementation of commercial housing projects through agreements on voluntary assignment of land use rights (LUR) or use of existing LUR (Resolution 171).
With its introduction of a more flexible mechanism for commercial housing development, Resolution 171 is anticipated to address the housing supply shortage. However, developers will need to wait for a detailed decree to ensure the feasibility and compliance of their proposed projects.
In the FLC and Van Thinh Phat cases, the authorities have accused the controlling shareholders of FLC and Van Thinh Phat of various crimes including crimes relating to public issuance of securities, stock manipulation or private issuance of bonds. In an apparent attempt to prevent these crimes to be recommitted, in December 2024, the National Assembly passes some important amendments to the Securities Law 2019 (2024 Amendment). The Amendment takes effect from 1 January 2025 and could impose significant risks to public companies and their shareholders in Vietnam.
Sweeping changes to the liability regime for public companies, their shareholders and advisors
Under the 2024 Amendment, organization or individuals participating in the process of preparing applicable files or reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market (hoạt động chứng khoán và thị trường chứng khoán) will be responsible for ensuring that:
such application files and reporting documents are legal, accurate, true and complete; and
such application files and reporting documents have clear and not misleading information and contain all material content which affect decision of the authorities, organisations and investors.
Advisors, who provide advice on the application files and reporting documents relating to securities activities and securities market, must be honest and prudent and must ensure that all analysis is reasonable and prudent.
Before the 2024 Amendment, the Securities Law 2019 only imposes liabilities to issuers, underwriters, auditors and “certifying organisations” when they conduct a public offering of securities or register their securities for listing or trading. However, by referring to all securities activities and securities market, the 2024 Amendment appears to expand the liability regimes to apply to all activities in the market including those which are normally not subject to such liability such as (1) private offering of securities, (3) public disclosures by a public companies or their shareholders, (4) secondary trading of securities by investors, and (4) advisors who are involved in these activities.
In practice, it would be very difficult for public companies and their shareholders and advisors to ensure that all of the documents and information relating to their public disclosures and securities trading activities do not contain misleading information and contain all material information, which affect decision by not only investors but also the authorities and other organisations.
On 24 September 2024, the Ministry of Public Securities (MPS) published the draft law on personal data protection (Draft PDPL). Compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL introduces several significant points related to personal data protection. This blog will explore the key highlights and implications of these new provisions.
1) Expanded scope of application
As compared to Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL broadens its scope to cover additional entities, being “agencies, organizations, and individuals collecting and processing personal data of foreigners within Vietnamese territories.” (Article 1.2(dd). This provision appears to enhance the protection of personal data belonging to foreign nationals. However, it remains unclear whether the provision applies solely to foreigners present in Vietnam or also to those residing abroad. The ambiguity lies in the interpretation of the phrase “within Vietnamese territories”. If it extends to foreigners outside Vietnam, it could impose significant compliance burdens on Vietnamese enterprises processing personal data of foreign nationals.
Furthermore, it is confusing that the Draft PDPL does not address the existing ambiguity in the scope of application under Decree 13/2023. Instead, it introduces another type of applicable entity that could potentially create even greater uncertainty.
2) Definition of personal data associated to “citizen”
Unlike Decree 13/2023, the Draft PDPL defines both basic personal data and, seemingly, sensitive personal data as being specifically associated to “citizens”. It is unclear why Draft PDPL limits its personal data protection to citizens rather than to all individuals, regardless of nationality or status. This approach is not in line with the term “personal data” in GDPR (which refers to that of a natural person). Furthermore, limiting protections to citizens could also infringe on the rights of non-citizens and stateless people, potentially conflicting with Article 21 of the 2013 Constitution, which guarantees privacy rights to "everyone," not just citizens.
Additionally, the term “citizen” is ambiguous, as it is unclear whether it refers to Vietnamese citizens only or also encompasses foreign citizens. If the former interpretation is adopted, this would be inconsistent with the broader scope outlined in Article 1.2(dd) of the Draft PDPL, which governs the personal data of foreigners. If the latter interpretation is adopted, it would not be reasonable for the Draft PDPL and Vietnamese authorities to govern personal data of foreign citizens (especially those who are not in Vietnam).
This post continues discussing some additional changes of the Law on Credit Institution 2024 (LCI 2024). For changes discussed in our Part 1, please see here, in Part 2, please see here.
1. More comment on security agent
As discussed in Part 2, LCI 2024 allows security agent operation. However, the relevant provision of LCI 2024 has the following limitations:
1.1. such provision does not clarify the nature of security agent and whether it is the relation of representative (đại diện) or authorization (ủy quyền) as stipulated under the Civil Code. Under LCI 2024, the activity of security agent is implemented under the provisions of relevant laws, without further clarifying which relevant laws are; and
1.2. LCI 2024 does not provide any details on what a security agent can do (such as definition of security agent or the role of the security agent).
2. New classification for letter of credit
LCI 2024 no longer classifies letter of credit operation as a payment service provided via account (dịch vụ thanh toán qua tài khoản). LCI 2024 now defines letter of credit as a form of credit extension through the issuance, confirmation, negotiation, payment and return of letter of credit.
One can assume that where possible (i.e., not prohibited by international treaties) Vietnamese law will likely provide better treatment to Vietnamese investors over foreign investor. However, in the examples discussed below, foreign investors do get better treatment over Vietnamese investors:
Investor protection - The biggest advantage that many foreign investors have over Vietnamese investors is the ability of the foreign investor to make a claim against Vietnamese Government before international arbitration under various investment treaties that Vietnam has signed with several countries. Vietnamese investors have no ability to do so. The Government of Vietnam has indeed been subject to several investor-State disputes and is well aware of the risk that it can be sued if it mistreats foreign investors.
The Official Gazette (Công Báo) publishes legal instruments (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) issued in accordance with the Law on Law. However, the Official Gazette also has a section which publishes “other legal documents” (Văn bản pháp luật khác). It is not clear if these “other legal documents”, which are not legal instruments, will have the force of law.
The Law on Legal Instruments (or Law on Laws) defines a legal provision (quy phạm pháp luật) to mean a general rule of conduct, with universal binding force, applied repeatedly to agencies, organizations, and individuals within the entire country or a specific administrative unit, as prescribed by a competent state agency in this Law and ensured by the State. A legal instrument (văn bản quy phạm pháp luật) is a document containing legal provisions issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments and must be published on the Official Gazette. The Law on Legal Instrument prohibits the issuance of documents which are not a legal instrument but which contain legal provisions. Since the “other legal documents” published on Official Gazette are not issued in accordance with the Law on Legal Instruments, they should not contain a legal provision and should not have the force of law.
It is unclear whether indirect ownership or control is taken into account when determining a company is the parent company of another company. Under Article 195.1 of the Enterprise Law 2020, a company will be deemed to be a parent company of another company in one of the following circumstances:
the former owns more than 50% of the charter capital or the total number of ordinary shares of the latter;
the former has the right to directly or indirectly appoint “the majority or all directors of the Board, Director or the General Director” of the latter; or
the former has the right to amend the charter of the latter.
The above definition makes it unclear because indirect control is only clearly mentioned in the case of appointing Board directors and Director (General Director) (i.e. the second limb).
The most common form of security which is created over houses and buildings is mortgage (thế chấp). However, the Civil Code 2015 also provides for other forms of securities. In this blog, we will discuss whether other forms of securities could be created over houses and buildings.
Pledge (Cầm cố) – Unlikely
Pledge of property means the delivery by one party of “property” under its ownership to another party as security for the performance of an obligation. Since the term “property” includes both moveable properties and immovable properties, it is arguable that a pledge could be created over houses and buildings being immovable properties. However, Article 310.2 of the Civil Code 2015 provides that “Where an immoveable property is the subject matter of a pledge in accordance with law, the pledge of the immoveable property shall be enforceable against a third person as from the time of registration.”
Reference to “in accordance with law” suggests that pledge could only be created over an immovable property if a law specifically allows it. However, currently the Land Law 2024 and the Residentially Housing Law 2023 only specifically allow mortgages to be created over residential houses or assets attached to land.
Article 23.1 of Vietnam's 2023 Law on Real Estate Business explicitly allows real estate developers to sell future properties, such as houses, buildings, or floor areas within a building. However, the law is silent on the leasing of future properties (except for hire purchase transactions). This omission has led to uncertainty regarding the legality of such transactions.
On the one hand, leasing of future properties was clearly permitted in a similar Article of the Law on Real Estate Business 2014. Accordingly, one could argue that the omission of leasing from Article 23.1 of the Law on Real Estate Business 2023 indicates that a real estate developer cannot lease future properties.
Under Article 84.2 of the Civil Code 2015, a branch (chi nhánh) of a legal entity has the duties to perform all or parts of the legal entity’s functions. However, a branch is not allowed under the Civil Code 2015 to act as an authorized representative of a legal entity. Accordingly, it is not clear in what capacity a branch would perform the functions of a legal entity.
Logically, in order for a branch to perform all or parts of the legal entity’s functions, either
Option 1: a branch could be allowed to act as an authorized representative of a legal entity under another law; or
Option 2: a branch could perform the functions of a legal entity in its own name and capacity. In other words, a branch can perform the functions of a legal entity without needing an authorization from the parent entity and the action (or inaction) of a branch will be deemed an action or inaction of the parent entity.
The term “economic organisation” (tổ chức kinh tế) was first introduced under the Investment Law 2014 and refers to, among other things, any company or organisation incorporated in Vietnam. Over time, the term “economic organisation” has been used consistently in other legislations and allows for a consistent application of the law. However, the Land Law 2024 has introduced significant confusion as to the meaning of the term “economic organisation”. In particular, it is not clear under the Land Law 2024, if the term “economic organisation” only refers to companies or organisations, which are not controlled by foreign investors and do not include companies or organisations which are controlled by foreign investors. The lack of clarity has important implication on how the Land Law 2024 is implemented. For example, if the term “economic organisations” under the Land Law 2024 includes organisations which are controlled by foreign investors then a foreign bank branch could have a clear legal basis to take mortgage over land use rights and assets attached to land.
The corporate bond crisis in Vietnam started in 2022 during which many corporate bonds issued before September 2022 under Decree 153/2020 were defaulted by the issuers (Pre-2022 Bonds). To facilitate the potential restructuring of Pre-2022 Bonds, in 2023, the Government issued Decree 8/2023 which allows for the bond issuers and the bondholders to agree to amend the terms of a Pre-2022 Bonds including the extension of the duration for the Pre-2022 Bonds to up to two years. However, the rights of a bondholder who disagrees with a restructuring proposal for a Pre-2022 Bond are not clear.
Under Decree 8/2023, the duration and the repayment schedule of a Pre-2022 Bond could be extended if the proposed extension is approved by bondholders representing 65% or more of the total number of outstanding bonds. Decree 8/2023 further provides that for bondholders who do not agree to changes in the conditions and terms of a Pre-2022 Bond (dissenting bondholders), the issuer is required to negotiate with the dissenting bondholders. If a dissenting bondholder does not accept the proposed negotiation plan, the issuer must fully fulfill its obligations to that dissenting bondholder in accordance with the original bond issuance plan. This requirement holds even if the proposed changes have been approved by the other bondholders who hold 65% of the outstanding bonds.
Under anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, reporting entities (e.g., credit institutions) are required to be aware of several key watchlists, maintained by relevant Vietnamese authorities, to ensure compliance with their AML obligations. This blog will introduce those watchlists and discuss specific requirements related to them.
Essential watchlists under AML regulations
Under AML regulations, the Vietnamese Government maintains the following watchlists:
(1) A Blacklist (danh sách đen in Vietnamese): including (a) list of organizations and individuals involved in terrorism and terrorism financing compiled by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), and (b) a list of organizations and individuals designated as being involved in the proliferation and financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, compiled by the Ministry of National Defense (MND);
(2) A warning list/Grey list (danh sách cảnh báo in Vietnamese): A list of organizations and individuals compiled by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) to warn about those with a high risk of money laundering; and
(3) A list of Foreign politically exposed person (PEP List) (danh sách cá nhân nước ngoài có ảnh hưởng chính trị in Vietnamese): A list of foreigners who hold a senior position in foreign agencies, organizations, and international organizations, notified by the SBV.
There are no specific guidelines on how to access these watchlists or the procedure for screening data against them. However, except for the Grey List, which has not yet been published by the SBV, the Blacklist ((1)(a) and (1)(b)) and PEP List can be found via the national portals of the MPS, MND, and SBV (see embedded links).
Under the Housing Law 2023, a developer of a commercial housing project could raise financing from the following sources:
equity capital of the developer;
capital raised from joint venture, business cooperation, and contribution from other organizations or individuals (BCC Capital);
capital raised from issuance of corporate bonds, shares, and fund units;
pre-sale proceeds raised from sale and purchase agreements or hire and purchase agreements with regards to future houses signed with customers;
debt financing raised from credit institutions or finance organizations operating in Vietnam (bank loans).
In comparison with the Housing Law 2014, the Housing Law 2023 clearly includes capital raising from issuance of bonds and fund units but excludes pre-sale proceeds of leasing agreements for future houses. In this post, we will discuss each of the sources of financing for a commercial housing project. The Housing Law 2023 still does not allow a developer of a commercial housing project to raise debt financing from offshore lenders.
This post continues discussing some additional changes of the LCI 2024. For changes discussed in our Part 1, please see here.
1. Lowering the limit on total credit balance
The LCI 2024 lowers aggregate credit limit over the CI’s equity capital for a customer, a customer and its related persons over different periods. Specifically:
On 26 March 2024, the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam (the Supreme Procuracy) issued Official Letter no. 1083/VKSTC-V9 (the Official Letter) to respond to inquiries from local procuracies regarding supervision in legal proceedings regarding civil, marriage and family matters. Although these clarification and interpretation are non-binding, they constitute an important source of interpretation for the procuracy system to rely on. However, one should note that interpretation by a procurator is not binding on the court and therefore is not as important as a guidance issued by the superme court.
In this post, we will discuss some statements of the Supreme Procuracy under the Official Letter that we find interesting or noteworthy:
1) Q&A no. 34: If (i) a civil transaction is not in the required form for it to be legally effective, (ii) the obligation therein cannot be quantified, and (iii) the court cannot determine how many parts of the obligation has been performed by the obligor then (a) Articles 129.1 and 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015, which allow an otherwise invalid transaction to remain valid if two thirds of the relevant obligations have been performed, would not be applicable to recognize the validity of such transaction and (b) such civil transaction would be consider invalid.
Our comments: The Supreme Procuracy seems to have taken the view that a party (i.e., the obligor who has performed a certain amount of work under such transaction) may only seek for recognition of the validity of a civil transaction if their situation is captured under Articles 129.1 and 129.2 of the Civil Code 2015.
Although this might be an understandable deduction from the straightforward reading of Article 129’s wordings, we believe that the aforementioned party should be able to request the court to consider their claim according to Article 14.2 of the Civil Code 2015 (i.e., the court should seek to apply customary practice, analogous law, basic principles of civil law, case law, and equity law to the case if Article 129 is not applicable) instead of being rejected immediately.
There have been numerous discussions about the new direct power purchase mechanisms (DPPA) introduced under Decree 80/2024 our own briefing note. In this post, we focus on issues which are unclear under Decree 80/2024 and require more clarification. Terms defined in our briefing note will have the same meaning when used herein. These issues are:
Decree 80/2024 introduces the concept of “Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones” (Đơn vị bán lẻ điện tại các mô hình khu, cụm được ủy quyền). However, it is not clear who will verify and determine whether an electricity retailer will qualify as an Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones. Decree 80/2024 does not make clear if the parties to the DPPA mechanism can verify the qualification of an Authorised Electricity Retailer in Zones or will require a third party (even the authority) to do so.
To purchase power via a DPPA mechanism, a customer is required to consume an average 200,000 kWh per month. If a Consumer consumes less than 200,000 kWh per month then the DPPA relating to such Consumer may have to be terminated. However, it is not clear if the 200,000 kWh threshold includes the amount of power purchased from (1) both EVN and the RE Generator or (2) EVN only. In other words, it is not clear Decree 80/2024 requires a Consumer to purchase at least 200,000 kWh from EVN. This interpretation seems not logical but not impossible.
On 16 May 2024, the Government of Vietnam promulgated Decree 55/2024 to elaborate some articles of the Law on Protection of Consumers’ Rights (Decree 55/2024) which replaced the Decree 99/2011 from 1 July 2024. Decree 55/2024 introduces some noteworthy amendments on requirements applied to standard form contracts (Standard Contracts) and general trading conditions (T&Cs) as follows:
Multilingual Standard Contracts and T&Cs:
Decree 55/2024 allows additional languages to be used in the Standard Contracts and T&Cs as agreed by the parties alongside Vietnamese. Previously, Decree 99/2011 only allowed the use of Vietnamese. This change accommodates international trade practices and facilitates clearer communication between parties.
Please download the pdf version here.
Decree 80/2024 outlining mechanisms for direct power purchase agreement (DPPA) between renewable energy generators and large electricity consumers (Decree 80/2024) was issued by Vietnamese Government and became effective 3 July 2024. This Decree is considered as a significant policy that aims to promote the development of renewable energy in Vietnam and enhance the competitiveness of Vietnam’s retail electricity market.
This briefing note discusses the significant highlights of DPPA mechanism to be applicable to renewable power developers, including rooftop solar power developers in Vietnam as introduced by Decree 80/2024. This post is written by Nguyen Thi Kim Anh and Ha Thanh Phuc and edited by Nguyen Quang Vu.
Under Article 27 of Decree 80/2024 on mechanism for direct sale and purchase of renewable energy with large electricity customers, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) will be entitled to suspend or terminate a Direct Power Purchase Agreement (DPPA) if there is an “act of taking advantage of the mechanism, policy for making profit”. For termination, the consequences of such act needs to be irremediable and the MOIT will need to obtain opinion from related authorities (presumably from the Ministry of Public Security).
Any large customer or any renewable energy producer enters into a DPPA will need to comply with (or “use”) the DPPA mechanism. In addition, obviously, the parties to a DPPA enter into the DPPA for the purpose of making profit (or saving costs). But Decree 80/2024 is not clear when the use of the DPPA mechanism would be considered as “taking advantage” (lợi dụng) of the mechanism or when an entity is deemed to make so much profit that the relevant DPPA may need to be suspended or terminated.