Vietnam Airlines Restructuring Plan

On 16 January 2013, the Prime Minister approved the restructuring plan for Vietnam Airlines, the national and largest carrier in Vietnam. The notable points of the restructuring plan include:

• Vietnam Airlines to be equitised within 2013. This may be an encouraging news for foreign investors interested in Vietnam Airlines who have waited for a long time since the intention to equitise Vietnam Airlines have been floated. However, the Prime Minister does not provide any further details on the proposed equitisation of Vietnam Airlines (e.g capital structure and how many shares will be owned by the Government after equitisation). This indicates that there are still works to be done;
• Vietnam Airlines to reduce its shareholding in Vietnam Air Petrol Limited Company (VINAPCO) from 100% to more than 50%. Vinapco is currently the only petrol company, which supplies fuel to commercial aircrafts in Vietnam;
• Vietnam Airlines to divest entirely from its holdings in various companies not relating to air transportation services including Techcombank (a large private joint stock bank with 20% investment from HSBC), Bao Minh Insurance Company, and Hoa Binh Securities Company; and
• Vietnam Airlines may adopt a sale and lease back arrangement for certain aircrafts currently owned by it.

Circular 213/2012 on activities of foreign investors on Vietnamese securities market

In December 2012, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) issued Circular 213/2012 on activities of foreign investors on Vietnamese securities market (Circular 213/2012). Circular 213/2012 will take effect from 15 February 2013 replacing Decision 121/2008 of the MOF on the same subject. The salient points of Circular 213/2012 include:

• Not applicable to non-public companies: Circular 213/2012 does not apply to (1) direct investment by way of share purchase or capital contribution and merger and acquisition, (2) trading of shares by non-public companies, and (3) trading of capital contribution in limited liability companies. On the other hand, Decision 121/2008 applies to, among other things, (1)  purchase unlisted shares which may include shares of non-public companies and (2) making capital contribution in Vietnamese companies which may include capital contribution of limited liability company. The reduced scope of application of Circular 213 may allow a foreign investor investing an a non-public company without having to obtain a securities trading code from the Vietnam Security Depository Center (VSD);
• Member funds established in Vietnam with more than 49% foreign capital is regarded as a “foreign investor”. Under Decision 121/2008, only member funds with more than 100% foreign capital is regarded as a “foreign investor”;
• Disclosure obligation for “related foreign investors”: A group of related foreign investors include (1) a group of foreign funds managed by the same fund manager, (2) sub-funds of the same master fund, (3) multiple investment managers fund, and (4) funds having the same trading representative in Vietnam. A group of related foreign investors must designate the single contact point to make public disclosures about its trading activities in Vietnam. In addition, a group of related foreign investors is prohibited from manipulating trading activities; and
• Issuance of Securities Trading Code before submission of legalized copies: Many foreign investors have complained that the requirement to have legalized copies of documents submitted to the VSD is cumbersome and takes time. Responding to the complaint, Circular 213/2012 now allows certain foreign investors to be issued a Securities Trading Code before submitting the required legalized copies of documents. 

Is “business transfer” a “share transfer”, “project transfer” or “assets transfer”?

A business transfer can generally understood as the transfer of, among other things, the assets, employees, contracts, clients and goodwill associated with a particular business. However, “business transfer” is not clear legal concept under Vietnamese law. In Vietnam, when one mentions "business transfer", it is not clear whether it refers to the transfer of (1) shares of the company that runs such business or (2) the assets and other components that constitute such business.

In case of (1), then a business transfer should probably better called as a share transfer transaction. In case of (2), commercially, a business transfer could be structured as the transfer of an “investment project” (see earlier post here) as provided under Article 66 of Decree 108/2006. However, there is no clear procedures under Decree 108 for a "project transfer" transaction which does not involve the transfer of shares of the project company. In particular,

• Article 66.2 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of a project of an economic organization not associated with the termination of operation of the assigning economic organization, the assignment of the project will comply with the conditions and procedures for assignment of capital;
• Article 66.3 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of a project of an economic organization associated with the termination of operation of the assigning economic organization, the assignment of the project shall comply with the conditions and procedures for merger with or acquisition of an enterprise;
• Article 66.4 of Decree 108 provides that in the case of assignment of an investment project associated with the termination of operation of the assigning organization and the assignee establishing an economic organization to continue implementation of the project, the investment procedures stipulated by this Decree must be carried out.

A “project transfer”, which is not a share transfer, is not associated with the termination of the assigning organization so Articles 66.3 and 66.4 of Decree 108 are not applicable. However, Article 66.2 of Decree 108 requires a transfer of project not associated with the termination of the assigning organization to follow procedures for assignment of capital. It is not clear how a project transfer by way of selling assets could comply with the procedures for assignment of capital.

As such, in case of (2), to avoid all the complications of a project transfer regulations, the parties can just structure a business transfer as a transfer of assets and other components of the transferred business.

Pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders over new shares issued by a joint stock company

It has never been clear whether an existing shareholder of a joint stock company (JSC) has pre-emptive rights over new shares issued by the JSC. However, in the past, under Decision 12/2007 of the Ministry of Finance on corporate governance rules applicable to public listed JSCs, “shareholders may refuse to exercise their priority right to purchase new shares. This right of refusal shall be clearly stated in the relevant resolution of the  general meeting of shareholders.” Many legal practitioners have relied on this provision of Decision 12/2007 to take the view that in case a public listed company issues new shares to a strategic investor by way of private placement,

• a collective waiver of pre-emptive rights recorded in the Shareholder resolutions of the target company approving the transaction is sufficient; and
• there is no need for the target company to collect individual waiver from each individual shareholder regarding their potential pre-emptive over the new shares to be issued to the strategic investor.

This view was particularly helpful to parties who want to expedite the deal process.

Decision 12/2007 has now been repealed by Decision 121/2012, which does not contain the provision on collective waiver of pre-emptive rights. On the contrary, Decision 121/2012 just basically repeats the provision in the Enterprise Law, which serves as the basis for pre-emptive rights of existing shareholders. While the model charter attached to Decision 121/2012 still contains a provision similar to the provision under Decision 12/2007, the legal arguments for not obtaining individual waiver from each individual shareholder regarding their potential pre-emptive over the new shares to be issued to the strategic investor have clearly become weaker.