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.
Decree 163 of the Government on logistics services was issued on 30 December 2017 (Decree 163/2017). It is going to take effect on 20 February 2018 and replace Decree 140 of the Government on logistics services dated 5 September 2007 (Decree 140/2007). Below are salient changes in Decree 163/2017.
Decree 163/2017 no longer requires the logistics services providers to meet the condition of adequate equipment and personnel. That condition was applied to some logistics services, but under Decree 163/2017, the logistics services providers have only to meet conditions specific to the logistics service that they provide.
Decree 163/2017 allows foreign investors to apply, at their discretion, investment conditions regarding logistics services under an international treaty where multiple treaties are applicable.
Decree 163/2017 classifies logistics services in accordance with Vietnam’s commitments to the WTO. By contrast, Decree 140/2007 has its own classification of logistics services which is not consistent with the description of logistics services under the WTO Commitments. And the investment conditions and foreign ownership limit provided in Decree 163/2017 are generally consistent with the WTO Commitments. Therefore, it is easier to compare the Decree 163/2017 with the WTO Commitments.
The table below sets out the applicable foreign ownership limit under Decree 163/2017, to the extent possible, in comparison with Decree 140/2007:
From 15 January 2018, Decree 8/2018 has simplified the conditions for obtaining a licence to import petrol for domestic distribution under Decree 83/2014 as below:
On 15 January 2018, the Government issued Decree 9/2018 on sale and purchase of goods and other directly-related activities by FIEs. Decree 9/2018 took effect immediately and replaces the outdated Decree 23/2007. Several issues arise from this Decree 9/2018. Unfortunately, most of these issues will likely make the operation and investment by FIEs in the sectors covered by Decree 9/2018 more (sometimes much more) challenging. In particular,
In November 2017, the National Assembly passed various amendments to the Law on Credit Institutions 2010 (LCI Amendments). About two-thirds of the LCI Amendments focus on restructuring, rescue, and liquidation of a credit institution. This probably explains the relatively short period between the issuance of the LCI Amendment and its effective date. The LCI Amendments will take effect from 15 January 2018, less than two months after issuance. The National Assembly usually give a new law six months to one year to take effect. This seems to indicate a sense of urgency by the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) in dealing with various banks which have been rescued by the SBV for the last couple of years.
In addition to the provisions on restructuring, rescue, and liquidation of a credit institution, the LCI Amendments contain a host of other amendments which aim to improve the governance and operation of a credit institution. These amendments include:
Decree 126/2017 replacing Decree 59/2011 on equitisation of State-owned enterprises introduces various new requirements for a strategic investor who invests during the equitisation of a State-owned enterprise (equitised SOE). These new requirements (especially the pricing requirement) are more difficult for a strategic investor to satisfy. In particular,
- The equitized SOE must decide to select the strategic investor and the strategic investor must commit to invest before publication of the public offering document for the public auction. Under Decree 59/2011, the strategic investor may decide to invest either before or after the public auction;
- Despite being required to commit to invest before the public auction, in most cases, the strategic investor must pay a price not lower than the average bidding price at the public auction. Under Decree 59/2011, there is no such requirement and the minimum price is the lowest successful bidding price. This requirement under Decree 126/201 seems to repeat the mistake under Decree 109/2007. There is unlikely any sensible investor who will commit to invest without knowing the price that it has to pay first;
The Sabeco – ThaiBev transaction announced on Monday is no doubt the biggest equity deal in Vietnam so far. The deal structure (see below) as reported by newspaper involves Vietnam Beverage acquiring 53.59% shares in Sabeco. Vietnam Beverage is wholly owned by Vietnam F&B Alliance Investment. Thai Bev, in turn, owns 49% of Vietnam F&B Alliance Investment. From the look of it, it appears that ThaiBev is investing in Sabeco by setting up a “non-foreign” investor through various corporate layering.
Under the Labour Code 2012, a labour contract means an agreement between an employee and an employer on a paid job, working conditions, and rights and obligations of each party to the labour relationship. A labour contract between an employer and its employee can fall into one of the following types:
- Seasonal Contract: a seasonal contract (or contract for a specific job) is a labour contract with the duration of less than 12 months;
- Definite Term Contract: a definite term contract means a labour contract with the duration of between 12 months and 36 months. The term of a definite term contract can be extended one time only. Thereafter, the employer must enter into an Indefinite Term Contract (see below); and
- Indefinite Term Contract: an indefinite term contract means a labour contract in which the two parties do not fix the term nor the time of termination of the contract.
In Vietnam, private ownership over land is not recognised under the Constitution and Land Law 2013. Instead, one may acquire certain rights which are close to the ownership rights over the land (land use rights) in accordance with the land regulations. A foreign investor does not fall under the scope of subjects that are entitled to obtain land use rights in Vietnam, but a local company (Local Co) wholly or partly owned by such foreign investor may acquire land use rights to conduct its investment projects.
1.1. Article 354 of the Criminal Code 2015 imposes criminal liability on the act of receiving bribes (tội nhận hối lộ), which is defined as an act, among others, of a person who holds an official position or “power” and directly or indirectly has received or will receive any of the following benefit for himself/herself or for other person/organisation:
1.1.1. money, properties or other “material benefit” in any form, which has a value of VND 2,000,000 (approx. USD100) or more; and
1.1.2. non-material benefit
with the intent of taking advantage of his/her official position or power in order to perform or refrain from performing certain acts for the benefit of, or as requested by, the person who offers the bribe. The Criminal Code 1999 considers only monies, properties or other material interest as bribes.
On 22 September 2017, the Ministry of Finance issued a model charter of public companies under Circular 95/2017 following the new governance regulations of Decree 71/2017. This model charter (New Model Charter) is to replace the old one (Old Model Charter) provided under Circular 12/2012, which is based on the now-defunct Enterprise Law 2005. These charters are not legally compulsory, thus should be read with reference purpose only.
Most changes to the New Model Charter reflect changes in the Enterprise Law 2014 and Decree 71/2017 (find out more here). Besides, the New Model Charter introduces the following notable changes:
Under Article 22.2 of the Labour Code 2012, where a definite term labour contract or seasonal labour contract (Old Contracts) expires, and the employee continues to work, then within 30 days from the expiry date of such Old Contracts (Expiry Date) the parties must enter into a new one; if the new labour contracts is not established, then the Old Contracts will become an indefinite term contract or a definite term contract with term of 24 months collectively (New Contracts). This provision has been interpreted in different manners as follows:
The Shareholder Meeting of a joint stock company (JSC) must convene a meeting at least once a year during the first four months or, if permitted by the Business Registration Authority and the Board, six months after the end of a financial year. Such meeting is called the annual meeting (cuộc họp thường niên) and other meetings of the Shareholder Meeting are called irregular meetings (cuộc họp bất thường). The Enterprise Law 2014 is not clear if there are two or more meetings of the Shareholder Meeting of a JSC in the first four months after the end of a financial year, then whether the first meeting among these meetings is regarded as the annual meeting or the JSC may have flexibility in deciding which meeting is the annual meeting.
A Vietnamese court does not have clear authority to remove a Board director from the Board of a Vietnamese joint stock company like other more developed jurisdictions. Under Article 156.1 of the Enterprise Law 2014, a Board director may be dismissed (miễn nhiệm) if he/she:
- fails to maintain the qualifications of a Board director including not having full capacity for civil acts or belonging to the types of persons who are not allowed to manage an enterprise in Vietnam;
- fails to participate in activities of the Board for six consecutive months, except in the case of an event of force majeure; and
- tenders a written resignation.
Under the Penal Code 2015, only “commercial legal person” (pháp nhân thương mại) could be subject to criminal liability. A commercial legal person is a legal person with the main objective of “seeking profit” which is distributed to its members. However, the concept of commercial legal person may raise several issues as follows:
- The Criminal Proceedings Code 2015 only refers generally to “legal person”. It is not clear why the Criminal Proceedings Code 2015 does not use the term commercial legal person despite being drafted and passed at the same time as in the Penal Code 2015.
- A commercial legal person’s main objective is “seeking profit” (tìm kiếm lợi nhuận). With the exception of “social enterprise” (doanh nghiệp xã hội), an enterprise in Vietnam is established for “the purpose of doing business” (mục đích kinh doanh). And “doing is business” has the purpose of “generating benefit” (sinh lợi). There is a slight difference between the use of words in the Enterprise Law 2014 and the Civil Code 2015. However, presumably, “generating benefit” under the Enterprise Law 2014 is intended to have the same meaning as “seeking profit” under the Civil Code 2015.
- The Civil Code 2015 considers social enterprises to be non-commercial legal person. Under the Enterprise Law 2014, a social enterprise is set up to solve social or environment issues for public benefit. However, a social enterprise still has the objective of making profit and still distributes profit to its members as long as it retains at least 51% of its profit for its social purpose. In practice, a social enterprise can still commit the crimes which apply to other enterprises (e.g. polluting the environment or tax evasion). Therefore, in the author’s opinion, the classification of social enterprises being non-commercial legal person under the Civil Code 2015 is a mistake and social enterprises should still be subject to criminal liability under the Penal Code 2015.
A draft Decree on logistics services in Vietnam (Draft Logistics Decree) has been circulated by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MOIT) recently. The Draft Logistics Decree, which appears to be a near final draft, will replace Decree 140/2007 on the same topic. The salient points of the Draft Logistics Decree include:
- The Draft Logistics Decree classifies logistics services in accordance with Vietnam’s commitment to the WTO. On the other hand, Decree 140/2007 has its own classification of logistics services which are not consistent with the description of logistics services under the WTO Commitments. So it is not easier to compare the Draft Logistics Decree with the WTO Commitments;
- The Draft Logistics Decree does not include certain logistics services which were provided in Decree 140/2007 (see the table below). Accordingly, it is not clear of these services are permitted or not permitted under the Draft Logistics Decree;
Under the Penal Code 2015, only a commercial legal person commits a crime listed in Article 76 of the Code could be subject to criminal liability. The table below lists out these crimes and the main penalties which may apply to them. Notably, the list does not include bribery and accounting frauds which usually happen to companies in Vietnam. The list is compiled by Ha Kieu Anh and Ha Thanh Phuc, legal trainees at Venture North Law Limited.
In a joint stock company (JSC), many important issues (such as increase of authorised capital, change of business lines or material transactions) are within the authorities of and need to be decided by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS). The GMS gives its decisions by passing resolutions (nghị quyết). In practice, a resolution of the GMS is passed in the following manner:
- A meeting of the GMS is held and at the end of the meeting a minutes (biên bản) of the meeting recording, among other things, decisions made in the meeting. Alternatively, the Board may arrange to collect written opinions from the shareholders and prepare a vote counting minutes; and
- Based on the approved minutes, the Chairman of the Board signs a document called “Resolution of the GMS” containing the specific decision approved by the GMS at the meeting of the GMS or by way of collecting written opinions from the shareholders. This document is usually provided to the company’s counterparties or licensing authorities.
The Enterprise Law 2014 regulates the first step in details such as quorum of the meeting, voting thresholds, and required contents of the minutes. However, the Enterprise Law 2014 does not have much provision concerning the second step. Therefore, several issues regarding the second step are not clear including:
- is this necessary to have a document called “Resolution of the GMS”?
- what is the importance of such document?
- who could sign such document?
Under the Civil Code 2015, the legal capacity of a branch is limited. To be specific, a branch cannot enter into contracts under its own name since it is not a legal person or a natural person. Also, while it is not entirely clear (see below), it is arguable that a branch can no longer be a representative of its parent company. Therefore, it is unsure whether a contract signed by a branch on behalf of the parent company is valid under the new regulations of the Civil Code 2015. This is because under the Civil Code 2015,
- only natural persons and legal persons can enter into contracts under their names;
- only a natural person or a legal person can become a representative for another person (either natural or legal); and
- the Civil Code 2005 used to provide that a branch’s function includes representative function (chức năng đại diện theo ủy quyền). However, such a provision is now removed under the Civil Code 2015.