Timing of a reconvened Board meeting in a Vietnamese joint stock company

Under Article 153 of Enterprise Law 2014, the Chairman of Board of Director (BOD Chairman) must convene the meeting of BOD within 7 days as from the date of receiving a request for an irregular meeting. In case the first meeting is not attended by three quarter or more of total BOD members, the second meeting must be convened within seven days as from the intended date of the first meeting unless a shorter time limit is provided in the company charter.  

According to the above regulations, there may be a dispute as to time for “convention” of the second meeting. One may argue that the second meeting of BOD must be held within 7 days or a shorter period provided in the company charter.

On the other hand, one may argue that the BOD Chairman only need to send notice of convening the BOD meeting within seven days or shorter period specified in the company charter. The second meeting may be held at any time provided in the notice sent by the BOD Chairman which may not be within the time limit as provided in Article 153 of Enterprise Law 2014.

If the latter understanding applies to the convention of the BOD second meeting, it appears that there is no time limit for organizing and conducting the second meeting. Based on the wording of laws and the company charter, the BOD Chairman may take advantage of this provision to prolong the organizing time of the second meeting if he/she considers that the request for BOD irregular meeting is not beneficial for him/her.

This post is contributed by Le Minh Thuy, a trainee at Venture North Law.

No acting in concert concept under Vietnamese securities regulations

In other jurisdictions, acting in concert is generally understood to mean the intentional cooperation between two or more parties to exercise control of a listed company. And persons deemed to be acting in concert will have their voting rights combined for the purpose of calculating whether or not a mandatory disclosure and/or tender offer is required. Vietnamese securities regulations do not clearly contemplate or nor regulate the concept of “acting in concert”. As such, it is quite common in Vietnam for technically-unrelated persons to coordinate their voting to control (or influence the control) of a public company without having to disclose the coordination or making a public tender offer. This practice could potentially cause damages to public investors who are not aware of the potential change of control of a public company.

The provision under Vietnamese law which is most relevant to the “acting in concert” concept is the definition of a related person under the Enterprise Law 2014. Under the Enterprise Law 2014, a group of persons agreeing to co-operate among themselves to takeover a share of capital contribution, a share or interest in the company or to control the issuance of decisions by the company will be considered as a related person of the company. However, the Enterprise Law 2014 only considers a group of concerting parties as a related person to the company that such parties are trying to control but not as related persons between themselves.

Update 30 April 2017 - Remove the sentence "In addition, it is not clear if the concept of “related persons” under the Enterprise Law 2014 would apply to a public listed company since the Securities Law 2006 has its own definition of related persons." since under Decree 71/2017, a related person includes both related persons under the Securities Law 2006 and Enterprise Law 2014.