Vietnam Business Law is a website managed by lawyers of Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw). Venture North Law Limited (VNLaw) is a Vietnamese commercial law firm. We won the Rising Law Firm of the Year Award at the Southeast Asia Law Awards for the years 2020 and 2021 held by The Legal 500. Very few Vietnamese law firms have achieved a similar regional recognition.
The Labor Code 2012 is silent whether a part time employee’s monthly salary could be lower than the monthly minimum wage published by the Government (currently VND 3,750,000 per month) as long as his/her hourly salary is higher than the hourly minimum wage converted from the monthly minimum wage.
Vietnam securities regulations do not have specific regulations governing a proxy contest where a shareholder or group of shareholder actively seeks to obtain proxies from other shareholders in order to influence the decision of the Shareholder Meeting (e.g. electing new Board directors or approving certain important corporate matters). In particular, a shareholder, who seeks to obtain proxies from other shareholders in a Public Joint Stock Company (Public JSC), is not required to make any public disclosure or filing about its intention for the proxies obtained.
On 14 March 2017, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) has issued an Official Letter No. 1576/NHNN-CSTT (OL 1576) explaining several points of its Circular 39/2016, including:
One important change made by Circular 39/2016 is that the loan period will start on the day immediately after the disbursement date rather than the disbursement date itself as provided by previous legislation. Consequently, interest payable by the borrower will also have to be calculated on that day. This change may appear small in theory but could cause material change in practice. This is because most banks are using software to calculate interest. And it appears that many systems have been set up according to previous practice which cannot be easily changed to reflect the change introduced by Circular 39/2016. The SBV however has not offered any clarification on this point.
This post is contributed by Nguyen Hoang Duy, an associate at Venture North Law Limited.
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.