Option arrangements are used quite frequently in M&A transactions in Vietnam. Many foreign investors have used options or convertible securities as a mechanism to, among other things, acquire additional shares once the regulatory restriction is removed or to allocate commercial risks between the parties.
Generally speaking, an option arrangement should be valid for the following reasons:
- Under Article 122 of the Civil Code, a civil transaction will be valid when it satisfies all of the following conditions: (a) persons participating in the transaction have capacity for civil acts; (b) the objective and contents of the transaction are not contrary to the law or social morals; and (c) persons participating in the transaction act entirely voluntarily. An option arrangement generally satisfies all these requirements and should be valid.
- Articles 6.1 and 6.7 of the Law on Securities recognize options as a form of securities. In particular, option to sell or option to buy is defined as a right stipulated in a contract which entitles a purchaser to choose the right to purchase or to sell a pre-determined volume of securities at a pre-determined price during a specified period.
Under Article 64 of the Commercial Law, options to purchase goods or options to buy goods are allowed to traded on a commodity exchange organized under the Commercial Law. In particular, call option or put option contract means an agreement whereby the option purchaser has the right to purchase or to be sold a certain type of goods at a pre-determined price (referred to as the contracted price) and must pay a certain amount of money for the purchase of this right (referred to as the option price). The option purchaser has the right to opt to carry out or not to carry out such purchase and sale of such goods.
However, the major difficulty relating to option arrangement is that exercising an option is not an automatic process. In Vietnam, after an option is exercised, the parties usually have to obtain necessary regulatory or corporate approvals so that shares can be issued or transferred to the relevant option holder. Therefore, cooperation of the counterparties is essential for successfully exercising an option arrangement. Certain option arrangements appear to have been successfully implemented with the cooperation of the parties involved.
Another difficulty is that although there is law which generally recognizes options arrangements, there are few detail implementation rules and regulations or court precedents. Therefore, it is difficult to anticipate how the authorities including the courts and other authorities view and enforce an option arrangement in practice.
In a recent post, we have discussed the concept of “wholesale” and “retail” as two forms of activities under the regulations concerning trading activities by FIEs in Vietnam. From the commercial perspective, “distribution” (phân phối) activities should involve the purchase or import of goods from suppliers for selling to customers. Thus, if an FIE has registered distribution business (i.e., wholesale or retail), it should naturally be able to import goods to sell within its distribution rights without being subject to further licensing requirements. However, this may not be justified from the legal perspective as the purchase of goods to sell in Vietnam or abroad by an FIE is classified as other forms of trading and should be licensed before implemented. Under Vietnamese regulations,
On 15 October 2018, the Government issued Decree 143/2018, which details regulation on compulsory social insurance (Social Insurance) applicable to foreign employees under the Social Insurance Law 2014. Before the issuance of Decree 143/2018, the Social Insurance Law 2014 only provides that foreign employees would be “allowed” to participate in Vietnam’s Social Insurance from 1 January 2018. For a long time, this vague regulation has given rise to concern as to whether the Social Insurance contribution for foreign employees is compulsory or voluntary. Decree 143/2018 now officially confirms that this is compulsory. In particular,
On 20 August 2018, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) issued Circular 21/2018 to amend and supplement some articles of Circular 47 of the MOIT dated 05 December 2014 on management of e-commerce websites (Circular 47/2014) and Circular 59 of the MOIT dated 31 December 2015 on management of e-commerce activities via applications on mobile equipment (Circular 59/2015). Below are some notable provisions of Circular 21/2018.
Set out below are some legal issues in transfer of debts (Debts) from a credit institution (Originator) to a company licensed to trade debts in Vietnam (Debt Trading Co). Debt trading between a credit institution and a credit institution is useful for the credit institution to handle its bad debts or to issue assets-backed securities:
Credit institutions are allowed to negotiate loan interest rates based on market demand and supply and the creditworthiness without being restricted to maximum interest rate except in some cases. Meanwhile, interest rates of loans extended by non-credit institutions are subject to the maximum interest rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Code 2015. In practice, interest rates of consumer loans are quite high and could be higher than the maximum rate of 20% per annum. If the interest rate of the Debts is higher than 20% per annum, it is not clear at law whether the Debt Trading Co, upon owning the Debt, can continuously charge such interest rate;
In September 2018, the Government issues Decree 117/2018 on protection of customers information in banking sectors replacing Decree 70/2000. Decree 117/2018 applies to confidentiality, storage and providing of information by credit institutions and foreign bank branches (collectively referred to as CI) relating to the deposit and asset of customers with the CI. The following points are notable:
· Decree 117/2018 does not apply to, among other things, information, which is classified as State secrets and which is governed by State secrets regulations. Under the old Decision 151/2003 of the Ministry of Police, information regarding customer deposits with a CI is classified as “State secret” at secret level. It is not clear if this classification still remains valid since Decision 45/2007 of the State Bank, which is based on Decision 151/2003, does not list customer deposit information as a State secret. Decree 117/2018 does not clarify this uncertainty;
Decree 9/2018 introduces a new approach regarding trading activities of foreign invested enterprises (FIE) in Vietnam. In particular, wholesale of most goods is not subject to the requirement of Trading License (Giấy Phép Kinh Doanh). However, Decree 9/2018 is still uncertain on the category of wholesale versus retail activities. A clearer definition of these concepts is important because an FIE conducting retail activities must apply for a Trading License with the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT).
Under Decree 9/2018,
“wholesale” means the activities of selling goods to (a) wholesalers, (b) retailers, and (c) other traders, organizations; exclusive of retail activities;
“retail” means the activities of selling goods to (a) individuals, (b) households, and (c) other organizations for consumption purposes.
There are some issues arising from the above definitions under Decree 9/2018:
The Enterprise Law 2014 provides that in a meeting of the Board of a joint stock company (JSC), a Board director may authorise another person to attend if such authorisation is approved by the majority of members of the Board. However, the Enterprise Law 2014 is silent about the ability of a Board member to authorise another person to vote for such Board member if the Board decides to pass its decision by way of collecting written opinion of Board members.
Under the Law on Construction 2014, a dispute relating to a construction contract can be resolved through mediation, by a commercial arbitration or court “in accordance with law”. This standard wording seems to allow parties to a construction dispute in Vietnam to select arbitration to settle the dispute. However, Circular 26/2016 of the Ministry of Construction provides that a dispute relating to quality of a construction work will be resolved in the following steps: