The case against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien and its potential implication
The first hearings of the criminal cases against Mr Nguyen Duc Kien, former Board member of Asia Commercial Bank (ACB) and Ms Huynh Thi Huyen Nhu, former staff of Vietinbank, a large State-owned bank have raised many fundamental issues about the business law framework in Vietnam. Unfortunately, without a full transcript of the hearings, one cannot comment on the legal interpretation adopted by the courts.
That being said, newspaper reports about Mr Kien’s conviction of illegally doing business (tội kinh doanh trái phép) have shed some light about the court’s interpretation of “doing business” under Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law. The background of the case is as follows:
Mr Kien set up two companies which do not register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares but for other business lines;
These two companies acquire and/or sell shares in other companies;
The procurator takes the view that the two companies have illegally done business which are not recorded in their business registration certificates. Under Article 9.1 of the Enterprise Law, a company is required to do business within the scope of its business registration certificates;
Mr Kien takes the view that under Article 13 of the Enterprise Law, a company is entitled to acquire shares in another company. Therefore, there is no need for Mr Kien’s companies to register for the business lines of sale and purchase of shares. In practice, the approach taken by Mr Kien’s companies is widely common. Some business registration authorities even refuse to register the business line of sale and purchase of shares on the basis that this activity is permitted by the Enterprise Law already; and
The first instance court hold that because Mr Kien’s companies do not do any business other than sale and purchase of shares, these companies are considered as engaging in the business of sale and purchase of shares.
Article 4.2 of the Enterprise Law provides that “doing business” (kinh doanh) means the continuous conduct of one, several or all of the stages of the investment process, from production to sale of products or provision of services in the market for profits. There is no further interpretation of the term “continuous conduct”. Now, it seems that the court will consider a business conduct by a company to be a continuous conduct if such business conduct is the only business conduct of the company. In light of this interpretation, owners of companies in Vietnam will likely pay more attention to ensure that their companies will at least actually engage in some business lines as provided in their business registration certificates.
In March 2018, the Government issued a new Decree (Decree 40/2018) on multiple level marketing (MLM) activities. Decree 40/2018 takes effect from 2 May 2018 replacing Decree 42/2014. In general, Decree 40 inherits many regulations of Decree 42/2014 and its implementing Circular (Circular 24/2014). That said, Decree 40/2018 introduces various new and stricter requirement on MLM activities. In particular,
A MLM enterprise must now register its activities with provincial competent authorities, where there are MLM activities conducted by its consultants. A MLM enterprise must appoint an individual representative in each province where it does not have branch or representative office. Under Decree 42, a MLM enterprise only needs to notify provincial competent authorities where there are MLM activities conducted by its consultants.
A MLM company must now make an escrow deposit of VND 10 billion or 5% of the charter capital, whichever is higher instead of VND 5 billion with a local bank or a foreign bank branch in Vietnam. The deposit is to secure for the MLM company’s obligations with respect to the members of the MLM network.
A shareholder (especially a foreign shareholder) in a Vietnamese joint stock bank (VN Bank) must know how much its shareholding in the VN Bank is. This is because (1) there are ownership caps applicable to a single shareholder or a group of related persons, and (2) a “major shareholder” is required to obtain an approval from the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV). Since the Law on Credit Institutions 2010 (LCI 2010) and Decree 1/2014 introduces the concept of “indirect ownership”, it may be difficult to determine the exact shareholding ownership of a shareholder in a VN Bank for the purpose of (1) and (2) above. Indirect ownership is defined as an organization or individual owning the charter capital or shareholding capital of a credit institution via a related person or trust investment.
Given the lack of clarity on tender offer rules and the difficulty in enforcing such rules in practice, it is not so difficult for an investor to accumulate significant stake in a public joint stock company (target company) in Vietnam. However, if such investor is not supported by the Board of the target company, then the unwelcomed investor may find a hard time to participate in the management of the target company even if the investor can acquire control of the target company at shareholder level. This is because:
In March 2018, the Government issued Decree 32/2018 containing major amendments to the regulations on sale of State capital in State-affiliated enterprises. The amendments will take effect from 1 May 2018. State-affiliated enterprises are joint stock companies (State-owned JSC) or limited liability companies with two members or more (State-owned LLC) a part of which is owned by the State or by a wholly State-owned enterprises (Wholly SOE). New amendments under Decree 32/2018 include:
Stricter pricing control
· Decree 32/2018 requires the State-seller to retain licensed valuer to value the State’s capital and to determine an asking price before commencement of the sale process even if the State-affiliated enterprises are listed companies. Under Decree 91/2015, it appears that if a State-affiliated enterprise is a listed company, then there is no need to retain a licensed valuer. Decree 32/2018 also provides that the asking price is only valid for a period of six months from the date of the valuation report. This suggests that a re-valuation is required if a sale is not completed within six months of the date of the valuation report.
· For a listed State-affiliated company, if the asking price determined by the valuer is lower than the average share price of the company during the period of 30 consecutive trading days before public announcement of the sale, then such average share price will be used as the asking price. It is not clear if the average share price is a arithmetic average or weighed average (which takes into account the trading volume each trading day).
· The licensed valuer when valuing the State’s capital must take into account the value of land leased by the State-affiliated enterprise and “history” of such State-affiliated enterprise. Decree 91/2015 only requires the value of land granted (not leased) to the State-affiliated enterprise to be taken into account. However, Decree 32/2018 does not specifically require the valuer to take into account whether the sale stake is a minority stake or a control stake.
Under the Law on Credit Institution 2010,
- a major shareholder of a joint stock commercial bank in Vietnam (VN Bank) is a shareholder, who owns directly or indirectly at least 5% of the total voting shares of the VN Bank. Indirect ownership is defined as an organization or individual owning the charter capital or shareholding capital of a credit institution via a related person or trust investment; and
- a SBV’s approval is required for “transfer of shares by a major shareholder” or “transfer of shares resulting in a major shareholder becoming a non-major shareholder and vice versa”.
Under the definition of a “major shareholder”, a holding company (Parent Co), which indirectly owns shares in a VN Bank through one of its subsidiaries (Sub Co) could be considered as a major shareholder of the VN Bank if the aggregate shareholding is 5% or more. However, in that case, it is not clear:
- whether Sub Co or Parent Co or both are considered as major shareholders of the VN Bank. And if the Parent Co only owns a part of Sub Co, then whether the indirect shareholding of the Parent Co in the VN Bank should be calculated with reference to the shareholding of the Parent Co in Sub Co; and
- whether a transfer of shares in Sub Co by a Parent Co is considered as a transfer of shares in VN Bank and is subject to SBV’s approval.
According to Social Insurance Law 2014, from 1 January 2018, any employee working under a labor contract with a term of from one month to three months must participate in the compulsory social insurance scheme (SI Requirement). The social insurance contributions are paid by both employer and employee subject to the contribution rate, of which the employer usually pays larger part. However, it is not clear whether an employee working under a “probation labour contract” (hợp đồng thử việc) with a term of from one to two months (Probationary Contract) must comply with the SI Requirement. There are various views on this issue.
Under the Law on Credit Institutions 2010 (as recently amended), a bank is subject to several limitations when extending a loan and other forms of credit to a borrower including the following:
(a) the aggregate outstanding credit extended to (1) a single client and (2) a single client and its related persons must not exceed 15% and 25% of the equity capital of the bank respectively. The outstanding credit includes, among other things, (1) bonds issued by the client and its related persons, (2) loans to clients being other credit institutions or loans secured by guarantees by other credit institutions, (3) loans secured by individual saving deposits, and (4) loans financed by funds entrusted by the Government, organizations or individuals. The Prime Minister may decide to waive this limitation subject to a limitation of 400% of the equity capital of the bank;
(b) a commercial bank must not extend credit to (1) board member, member of member council, member of board of controllers, general director, director, deputy director, deputy general director and equivalent positions in the commercial bank, legal entities being a shareholder whose representative of the capital contribution portion is a board member or member of board of controllers; and (2) a parent, spouse or child of a board member or member of board of controllers or of general director, director or deputy general director, deputy director and equivalent positions.
A bank must not extend credit to a borrower on the basis of security provided by any of the persons specified at (b);
(c) a bank must not extend credit without security or under preferred conditions to following persons: (1) auditing organization and auditor currently conducting an audit at such bank or inspector currently conducting an inspection at such bank; (2) chief account of such commercial bank; (3) major shareholders and founding shareholders of such bank; (4) companies of which more than 10% of charter capital is owned by one of the persons specified in (b); (5) people conducting appraisal and approval of loans; and (6) subsidiaries or affiliates of such bank or of an enterprise controlled by such bank.
The total outstanding credit balance extended by a bank to all borrowers specified at (1) to (5) must not exceed 5% of equity capital of such bank. Such outstanding credit balance includes the total of the investment and purchase of bond issued by the borrowers (if applicable).
The total outstanding credit balance extended by a bank to a single borrower specified at (6) must not exceed 10% of equity capital of such bank and to all borrowers specified at (6) must not exceed 20% of equity capital of such bank. Such outstanding credit balance includes the total of the investment and purchase of bond issued by the borrowers.