Vietnamese banking regulations do not have clear mechanics for transfer of loan commitments between banks or credit institutions in Vietnam. In particular:

• Under Circular 9/2015 of the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) on loan transfer, loan transfer is defined to mean the transfer of “the right to collect loan” arising from the lending operation by a bank (the Original Bank) to a loan purchaser, which may or may not be a bank. The definition of loan under Circular 9/2015 does not include loan commitment where a bank only commits to lend to a borrower but has not actually disbursed the loan. Accordingly, all the loan transfer mechanics under Circular 9/2015 do not directly apply to transfer of loan commitment.

• One way for banks to overcome the lack of regulations on transfer of loan commitment is for the Original Bank to actually disburse the loan and then transfer such loan to another bank (New Bank) in accordance with Circular 9/2015. However, under Circular 9/2015, if the loan purchaser is a bank, then the SBV requires the New Bank to have a loan purchase license. Not all banks in Vietnam are granted a loan trading licence by the SBV.

• Under the lending regulations (Circular 39/2016), a loan commitment could be understood to be an undertaking by a bank to handover to the client an amount of money to use. Therefore, it appears that a loan commitment is regarded as an obligation to lend by a bank (which, of course, is usually conditional on the borrower’s satisfying certain conditions precedent). Therefore, transfer of a loan commitment is regarded as a transfer of obligation and will require the consent of the borrower. Borrower’s consent is usually not a problem since any proper loan agreement will include a transfer clause which allows the bank to transfer any of its rights and obligations under the loan agreement to a third party.

On 15 May 2018, the Supreme Court issued Resolution 3 on expedited proceedings for disputes arising from handling of non-performing loans (NPL) and security assets of NPL (Resolution 3). Resolution 3 is an implementing legislation of Resolution 42 of the National Assembly on NPLs (Resolution 42). Resolution 3 takes effect from 1 July 2018 and will expire when Resolution 42 expires in August 2022. Resolution 3 will apply to claims (1) accepted for hearing by the courts before 1 July 2018 but have not been brought to trial; and (2) accepted during its term but still in process when it expires. Resolution 3 cannot be based on to protest against effective judgment under retrial and cassation.

Resolution 42 allows disputes relating to security asset of an NPL to be conducted under expedited proceedings. Resolution 3 further clarifies that:

• Disputes on obligations to hand-over security assets of an NPL is clarified to be dispute relating to the case where the securing party or the party holding the security asset (1) does not hand-over the security asset, or (2) does not hand-over correctly according to the request of the secured party or the party having right to enforce the security asset; and

• Dispute on right to enforce security asset of NPL is clarified to be dispute on the determination of person having right to enforce the security asset of an NPL.