The Civil Code 2015 recognises that future assets can be used as security. Future assets are assets which do not exist at the time of creation of the relevant security or which exist at the time of creation of the relevant security but do not belong to the ownership of the relevant mortgagor or pledgor. However, it is not clear how a mortgage or pledge over a future asset which is not owned by the mortgagor at the time of creation of the mortgage or pledge could reconcile with the requirement that the mortgagor or pledgor must own the mortgaged assets under the Civil Code 2015.
Under the Civil Code 2015, the time limitation for making a claim is longer than that of the Civil Code 2005. For example,
- Under the Civil Code 2015, a claim for breach of contract or for non-contractual damages now has a time limitation of three years commencing on the date on which the claimant knows or should have known that the claimant’s rights or interests have been violated. This is longer than two years under the Civil Code 2005. In addition, the two year time limitation period under the Civil Code 2005 may commence on a much earlier date (i.e. the date on which the claimant’s rights or interests have been violated).
- Under the Civil Code 2015, a claim for an inheritance of an immovable property is 30 years instead of 20 years under the Civil Code 2005.
Previously, a land user who leases land from the Government with annual payment is not allowed to lease houses and building attached to the land unless such land user registers for real estate business under the Law on Real Estate Business 2014. The restriction has been removed by Decree 1/2017. Decree 1/2017 has, among others, clarified the issue of right to lease buildings attached to land with annual rental payment. In particular, Decree 1/2017 provides that a land user who leases land from the State and pays annual rental may lease their assets attached to the land piece if:
There is no mandatory confidentiality obligations applicable to parties to an arbitration proceeding in Vietnam. Under the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010, dispute resolution by arbitration will be conducted in private unless otherwise agreed by the parties. But hearing in private does not mean that information exchanged by the parties during the hearing must be kept confidential. Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 only expressly imposes confidentiality obligation on the arbitrators but not on other parties attending the hearing (e.g. experts, witness or even lawyers). Arbitration Rule 2017 of Vietnam International Arbitration Center (VIAC) has no particular confidentiality provision beyond making the arbitral hearing private.