Potential Issues for Vietnamese Bondholders When Bond Issuer Are In Default

The recent credit crunch and anti-corruption campaigns in Vietnam have made many bond issuers in Vietnam fail to repay their outstanding bonds. According to a recent report, around 67 bond issuers are in default and the outstanding amount is around US$ 3.7 billion. Bond issuers, who wish to recover the principal and coupons and to enforce their rights, could face significant legal issues. In this post, we will discuss some of these issues:

·        Lack of documents and information: It may be difficult for a bondholder to have access to all the transaction documents of a bond including (1) detailed bond terms and conditions,  (2) agreements between issuers and other service providers such as bondholders’ representative, security agent, or registration agents, and (3) security agreements. This is because under the law, a bond issuer is not required to make public all these documents. Only a summary of key terms and conditions of the bonds is required to be published. And only for bonds issued after 1 January 2021, a bond holder is granted the right to request for documents and information relating to the bonds. In addition, in practice, many individual investors did not pay attention in collecting these documents when purchasing the relevant bonds.

·        Uncooperative agents: In a standard bond transaction, the bond issuer will usually engage various service providers to act as representatives for the bondholders (e.g., bondholders’ representative, security agents, or registration agents). Since these representatives are appointed and paid by the bond issuer, in practice, they may be reluctant to take actions against the bond issuers for the benefit of the bond holders if the bond issuers are in default.

Role of Bondholders’ Representative under Vietnamese Law

A bondholders’ representative (Đại diện người sở hữu trái phiếu) is defined in Decree 155/2020 as a depository member of the Vietnam Securities Depository or a fund management company which is appointed or selected to “represent” the bondholders’ interests. However, it is not clear whether the bondholders’ representative is a legal representative or an authorized representative of the bondholders.

The legal nature of the role of bondholders’ representative is quite important. For example, if the bondholders’ representative is the legal representative of the bondholders then the bondholders cannot directly exercise their rights under the bond terms. On the other hand, if the bondholders’ representative is only an authorised representative of the bondholders then technically, the bondholders could still directly exercise their rights under the bond terms.

The Crime of Fraud And Misuse of Bond Issuance Proceeds in Vietnam

In 2022, Vietnamese authorities brought charges against two principal shareholders of Tan Hoang Minh and Van Thinh Phat for the crime of fraud (Tội lừa đảo) under Article 174 of the Penal Code 2015. Newspaper reports suggest that the relevant individuals have undertaken fraudulent activities in issuing corporate bonds and appropriate the bond issuance proceeds from bondholders. However, to prove that an individual commits a crime of fraud, the authorities would need to produce more evidence to support their cases.

Article 174 of the Penal Code 2015 imposes criminal liability to an individual who appropriates others’ properties by fraudulent means. Based on comments from reputable scholars (link 1, and link 2), the crime of fraud has the following characteristics:

  • Only individuals could be convicted of the crime of fraud. Companies cannot be convicted of this crime. Accordingly, the entities issuing corporate bonds in the above cases cannot be convicted of the crime of fraud;

  • The criminal must have the intention to appropriate properties of other persons. To appropriate a property, the criminal must obtain all three elements of ownership right including right of possession, right to use and right to dispose the property. If the criminal only obtains one or two elements of ownership right then it is not a crime of fraud. In a similar provision, the Penal Code 2015 applies criminal liabilities to a person who borrows monies from other but, among other things, does not repay when the loan is due even though such person has the capacity to repay the loan. This provision suggests that if the loan is not due yet then the act of appropriation might not have occurred. Accordingly, if the bond issued by the relevant issuing entities are not due yet then it is not clear if the bond proceeds can be treated as being appropriated by the relevant individuals;

Obligations of a Vietnamese company satisfying public company requirements pending an SSC registration

A Vietnamese company which satisfies public company requirements but which has not registered its public company status with the State Securities Commission (SSC) may arguably not need to comply with various obligations of a public company under Vietnamese law.

Under the Securities Law 2019, a public company is a joint stock company that satisfies the following conditions (the Required Conditions):

· having a minimum paid-up charter capital of 30 billion dongs, and

· having at least 10% of the voting shares held by at least 100 investors not being major shareholders.

The Securities Law 2019 also provides that:

· a company satisfying the Required Condition must register its public company status with the State Securities Commission (the SSC); and

· after the SSC confirms the registration of public company status, the relevant company will have various rights and obligations of a public company such as public disclosure, corporate governance, and registration for trading.

However, the law is silent on the obligations of a company which satisfy the Required Conditions but which has not obtained the SSC’s confirmation on public company status.