Introduction
On 18 January 2024, new Law on Credit Institutions (LCI 2024) has been passed by the National Assembly. LCI 2024 will replace the Law on Credit Institutions 2010 (as amended) (LCI 2010) from 1 July 2024. In a series of posts, we will introduce the new changes of LCI 2024.
It seems that the ongoing criminal case against the controlling shareholders of Saigon Commercial Bank (SCB) has motivated the draftsman of LCI 2024 to introduce stricter management toward credit institutions (CIs).
Stricter conditions of independent board members
LCI 2024 tightens the standards and conditions of independent members of the Board of Directors of CIs. Specifically, an independent member of the Board of Directors of a CI must not represent ownership of any share of such CI and not, together with his/her related persons, directly or indirectly own 1% or more of the charter capital of such CI.
A broader range of related persons
LCI 2024 expands the definition of related persons to also cover the relationship between (i) the “grandparent” company/CIs and the “grandchildren” company, (ii) the manager/controller of a parent company/CIs and the subsidiary, and (iii) an individual with his/her wider range of family members.
On 22 June 2023, the National Assembly passed a new Law on E-transactions, set to be effect from 1 July 2024 (LET 2023). The LET 2023 introduces significant changes regarding the use of e-signatures by individuals as outlined below:
1) Restriction on individuals’ right to create and use of their own e-signature
The LET 2023 categorizes e-signatures into three types as below, none of which encompass e-signatures self-generated by individuals:
specialized e-signatures (chữ ký điện tử chuyên dùng), which are created and used by organizations for their “own private operations” in accordance with their function and tasks;
public digital signature (chữ ký số công cộng), which are used for “public activities” and are secured by an e-certificate confirming the public digital signature issued by a qualified service provider; and
specialized digital signature for official use (chữ ký số chuyên dùng công vụ), which are digital signatures used for official activities and are secured by an e-certificate confirming the specialized digital signature for official use issued by a qualified service provider
Unlike the broader definition of e-signatures under the LET 2005, which may cover signatures self-created by individuals, this classification significantly limits individuals' ability to create and use their own e-signatures. Under the LET 2023, individuals may be required to use a public digital signature issued by a third-party service provider in normal e-transactions.
Under the Law on Bankruptcy 2014, creditors (chủ nợ) of a bankrupt enterprise include unsecured creditors, partially secured creditors (chủ nợ có bảo đảm một phần) and secured creditors (chủ nợ có bảo đảm). While it is not entirely clear, it appears that partially secured creditors are considered as a separate class of creditors and have their own rights during a bankruptcy proceeding.
Under the Law on Bankruptcy 2014,
a secured creditor is defined as a creditor having the right to require the relevant bankrupt enterprise to perform an obligation to repay a secured debt with the assets of the enterprise or a third party; and
a partially secured creditor is defined as a creditor having the right to require the relevant bankrupt enterprise to perform an obligation to repay a secured debt with the assets of the enterprise or a third party “where the value of such assets is less than that debt”.
The definition of a secured creditor does not clearly refer to “fully secured creditors” since it does not require the value of the secured assets is equal or more than the debt owed to a secured creditor. Accordingly, technically, the term “secured creditor” could cover both partially secured creditor and fully secured creditor. That said, a more in-depth reading of the Bankruptcy Law 2014 suggests that partially secured creditors are treated as a separate class of creditors. However, it is not clear whether this distinction is created by design or by chance by the draftsman of the Bankruptcy Law 2014.
From January 2021, under the Enterprise Law 2020, if a member of the board of directors (the Board) hands in his/her letter of resignation to resign as a Board member in a joint stock company (JSC), he/she may not cease to be a Board Member until approved so by the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) of the relevant JSC. To mitigate the potential issues arising from this provision, a JSC may consider providing that the GMS must dismiss a Board member when he/she tenders his/her resignation. In addition, the resigning Board Member should give authorisation to another appropriate person until he/she is officially dismissed.
After incorporating a joint stock company (JSC), the founding shareholders of the JSC will typically have 90 days from the issuance of the enterprise registration certificate (Capital Contribution Period) to pay for the shares they have subscribed as at the incorporation of the JSC (Subscription Shares). Under the Enterprise Law 2020, it is reasonable to consider that during the Capital Contribution Period, the founding shareholders who have not paid for the Subscription Shares in full would have all the shareholders rights including rights to transfer the Shares which have not been paid up. However, the drafting of the Enterprise Law 2020 could give rise to the position that during the Capital Contribution Period shareholder rights, the founding shareholders have only the voting right.
Introduction
As detailed in a prior post, in our opinion, representations and warranties (warranties) should constitute obligations of the person giving it under Vietnamese law. They could imply an obligation on the part of the person providing them (Warrantor) to guarantee that the stated facts and matters are true. In this post, we will try to examine the consequences of breaches of representations and warranties under Vietnamese law. As discussed further below, depending on the context, a breach of warranties might give rise to:
· liabilities for breach of warranties as independent obligations; or
· liabilities for breach of obligations to deliver conforming goods; or
· liabilities for breach of obligations to provide information to contracting parties; or
· indemnity (or reimbursement) of losses to the extent the parties have agreed for an indemnity (or reimbursement) of losses arising from a breach of warranties.
Given that “representations and warranties” are exclusively common law concepts and no specific legal framework for them is provided under Vietnamese law, it is important that Vietnamese law contracts should have provisions dealing with the above in order to achieve the intended outcome of the parties.
Based on the discussion below, probably, the preferable approach is to have specific wording in the share sale and purchase agreement that warranties form part of the description and quality of the sale shares so that, among other things, seller could be subject to the remedies applicable to breach of obligation to deliver non-conforming goods.
Please download the pdf version here.
After a quite lengthy debate and discussion, on 28 November 2023, the National Assembly officially adopted a new law on real estate business (Real Estate Business Law 2023). The Real Estate Business Law 2023 is expected to enhance the real estate business environment and resolve some long-standing legal issues. However, the new Real Estate Business Law 2023 will have to wait until 1 January 2025 to take effect. The deferred effectiveness of the Real Estate Business Law 2023 is probably intended to give the National Assembly more time to promulgate the new land law, which to some extent could be considered as the “foundation” for formulating the Real Estate Business Law 2023.
Representations and warranties constitute an important building block in a contract. Unfortunately, Vietnamese contract law does not have a separate regime on representations and warranties. Accordingly, this gives rise to various questions concerning representations and warranties under Vietnamese law. The first question would be whether representations and warranties are considered as obligations of the person giving it.
In a book on Vietnam contract law, the author, a well-known business lawyer, considers that representations and warranties are statements of facts and are not undertaking to perform or not perform a specific task. Therefore, representations and warranties are not obligations under Vietnamese law. We have a different view on this.
At law, enterprises engaging in certain special business lines (e.g. labour outsourcing service, employment services, etc.) (Security Deposit Enterprise) are required to place a security deposit at a licensed bank in Vietnam (Custodian Bank) before conducting the relevant businesses (Security Deposit). The Security Deposit is subject to strict control regulations (e.g. it can only be withdrawn or released in specific cases upon being approved by a competent authority). While the term of the Security Deposit could be long (e.g. more than one year), it is not entirely clear from the law whether the Custodian Bank can establish the Security Deposit as a term deposit and apply the respective interest rate.
Owners of apartments in an apartment building in Vietnam must set aside 2% of the purchase price for contribution into the apartment building’s maintenance fund (Quỹ bảo trì) and pay monthly contribution into the apartment building’s operation fund (Quỹ vận hành). The management of an apartment buildings including the maintenance fund and the operation fund will be handled by (1) “the meeting of [owners of] the apartment building”(hội nghị nhà chung cư) (building owner meeting) (2) a building management board selected by the building owner meeting, and (3) a management company selected by the meeting of owners of the apartment building.
Vietnamese law provides for a relatively detailed framework on management of an apartment building. However, several important issues, which are discussed below, are still not adequately addressed:
The residential housing regulations seem to require an apartment building to be managed by a single management company. However, an apartment building usually includes certain commercial components such as office or shopping mall which are managed and operated very differently (e.g., the lifts serving commercial section will be used more extensively that those used for residential section). Accordingly, the combination of management of both residential section and commercial section in one single mechanism could cause conflicts between the apartment owners and the owners of the commercial section.
On 18 September 2023, the Government issued Decree 70 (Decree 70/2023) to amend various regulations on management of foreign employees under current Decree 152/2020. Decree 70/2023 took effect immediately upon its issuance. Below is our discussion on notable changes introduced under Decree 70/2023.
1) Easing requirements for engagement of foreign employees
Under Decree 70/2023, a foreign employee is no longer required to have educational background to be relevant to his/her work experience and proposed job in Vietnam. Instead, the law now only requires the employee to have a minimum work experience suitable for the proposed jobs;
Decree 70/2023 now expands the type of documents that can be used to demonstrate educational background and work experience of foreign employees being expert and technician. In particular, previous work permits or exemption certificates can also be used as evidence for foreign employee’s experience; and
A foreign employees now can use passport copy which has been certified by their Vietnam-based employer to apply for work permit or renew its work permit, this would facilitate employees’ application for work permits from abroad. Previously, the employees had to provide their original passport for notarization in Vietnam.
n 24 April 2023, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Vietnam (the Supreme Court) hosted an online seminar to tackle some issues that arise in the courts’ trial practice. Official Letter no. 196/TANDTC-PC issued by the Supreme Court on 3 October 2023 (the Official Letter) documents the results from the online seminar in April. The Official Letter contains mainly the clarification and interpretation of the Supreme Court of the existing legal provisions across various areas of law, including penal, civil, commercial, and administrative. Although these clarification and interpretation are non-binding, they constitute an important source of interpretation for the court system to rely on.
In this post, we will discuss some clarifications from the Official Letter that we find interesting or noteworthy:
1) The subjects capable of committing the crime of “Intentional public disclosure of false information or concealment of information in securities activities” (Article 209 of the Penal Code 2015) are the natural persons or commercial legal persons responsible for public disclosure of information regarding securities, and not the parties to a securities transfer transaction.
Our comments:
The clarification for the Supreme Court is not clear since under the securities regulations, sometimes parties to a securities transaction must make public disclosure about the transaction (e.g., sale or purchase of shares by a major/inside shareholder). So it appears that this crime only applies to a person who violate the disclosure obligations under securities regulations but not to a person who fails to disclosure information under its contractual obligations.
On 8 November 2023, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Official Letter 8631 to publish answers to certain questions on lending regulations under Circular 6/2023 of the SBV dated 28 June 2023 (Circular 6/2023) amending Circular 39/2016 of the SBV dated 30 December 2016 on lending activities of credit institutions (CIs) and/or foreign bank branches with customers (Circular 39/2016).
The table below will highlight some notable answers of the SBV.
In practice, annually, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) allocates annual credit growth limits to each credit institution including the finance company. However, the SBV’s allocation for each credit institution is not publicly available. Each credit institution will be subject to different credit growth limits. Based on newspaper reports, it appears the SBV takes into account the financial status of each credit institution, targeted inflation rate and targeted GDP growth rate to make the decision. In September 2022, it was reported that the SBV should use its ranking system to decide to allocate credit growth limits to each credit institution.
The planned credit growth limit for a year can be adjusted by the SBV during that year based on the assessment of the operation status and liquidity of each credit institution, as well as other development policies.
Decree 13/2023 on Personal Data Protection (PDPD) has stirred a lot of excitement among legal professionals in Vietnam. Recently, such excitement met with the cold hard realities of the difficulties in fulfilling even the basic administrative procedures under PDPD. In particular, in July 2023, the Ministry of Public Security (MPS) published the required contents of the file for assessment of the impact of personal data processing and the file for assessment of the impact of offshore transferring personal data. The levels of details and analysis required to prepare these files are very demanding. For example, the MPS require these files to include the following information and documents:
an the legal representative cum general director re-authorise another person to sign an agreement approved by the Board if he/she is authorised by the Board to sign this agreement?
Though there remain some counter arguments (as discussed below), subject to the provisions of the charter of the relevant company (e.g. there is no specific provision of the charter which prohibits the legal representative from re-authorising his authority to other person), it is arguable that the legal representative can re-authorise his/her signing authority to another person to sign the agreement. This is because:
Under Article 138.1 of the Civil Code 2015, an individual or legal entity can authorise other individual and legal entity to establish and perform the civil transaction.
Under Article 12.3 of the Enterprise Law 2020, the legal representative must authorise the other person to carry out his/her authorities if he/she is absent from Vietnam. This suggests that the legal representative can re-authority any other person to perform his/her authorities.
The representation authority is a default right of the legal representative (Article 12.1 of the Enterprise Law 2020). Therefore, while the Board can approve the agreement, the right to represent the company to sign such agreement should belong to the legal representative.
Vietnam has promulgated a detailed rules of origin for goods exported from Vietnam to be considered as “made in Vietnam”. These rules include Decree 31/2018 and its implementing regulations. In addition, various international trade treaties to which Vietnam is a party also have their own rules of origin (e.g., ATIGA).
On the other hand, Vietnam has no clear rules in determining whether a product sold in Vietnam market is considered as being “made in Vietnam” (Made-in-Vietnam Criteria). According to Article 2(d) and Article 3(c) of WTO’s Agreement on Rules of Origin, WTO’s members must ensure that the rules of origin that they apply to imports and exports are no more stringent than the rules of origin they apply to determine whether or not a good is domestic and will not discriminate between other members, irrespective of the affiliation of the manufacturers of the good concerned. This means that the rules of origin apply to products manufactured and traded within Vietnam (i.e., Made-in-Vietnam Criteria) such as products of the Project can be:
equivalent to those that apply to imports and exports; or
more stringent than those that apply to imports and exports. Currently, there are no rules of origin, which are directly applicable to products manufactured in Vietnam and are more stringent than those applicable to imported products.
In other words, products manufactured and traded within Vietnam are always subject to equal or more stringent rules of origin than those applicable to imported products.
1) Introduction
On 22 June 2023, the National Assembly issued a new Law on E-transactions, which will take effect from 1 July 2024 (LET 2023). The LET 2023 has the following notable points:
Unless otherwise clearly excluded, the LET 2023 applies to e-transactions in all areas whether by companies, individuals or Government agencies.
A data message converted from paper document or vice versa must have clear marking that it has been converted from paper document and information of the converter.
A natural person may not be able to create and use his/her own e-signature and may have to use digital signature for his/her e-transactions.
For the first time, trust services are introduced. The service provider must be licensed by the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC).
We discuss below each of these new points and some more. This post is written by Nguyen Quang Vu, Hoang Thi Thanh Thuy, Trinh Phuong Thao and Phan Thi Phuong Mai.
In December 2022, the Prime Minister decided to establish VSDC by converting Vietnam Securities Depository Center (VSD) being a Government agency under the State Securities Commission (SSC) into a single limited liability company under the Enterprise Law 2020. The Minister of Finance will act as representative of the State capital in VSDC.
The conversion of VSD into VSDC could have the following legal implications:
As an enterprise, VSDC can now be exposed to civil claims by its users if VSDC breaches its rules or contracts signed with securities companies, listed companies or other users. VSDC could also be subject to non-contractual claims by securities investors. As a Government agency, VSD is only exposed to administrative claims by its users which are more limited than civil claims.
Amidst the turmoil in Vietnamese bond market, which has not showed any sight of improvement, the Government continues to change the legal framework around Vietnamese corporate bonds. The latest regulations are the regulations by the Vietnam Security Depository Corporation (VSDC) on registration, depository, settlement and implement of rights for private corporate bond (VSD Private Bond Regulations). In light of the new VSD Private Bond Regulations and the difficulties for current bond holders to enforce their rights under the terms and conditions of bonds issued earlier (standard terms), it is high time that the terms and conditions of private corporate bonds to be drafted differently to give better protection to bond holders. We discuss below some of the improvements which could be included in the terms and conditions of a new private corporate bond:
· Individual vs collective rights: under standard terms, most of the rights of bondholders are exercised collectively through the meeting of bondholders and/or the various agents (e.g., bondholders representative, security agents, or registration agents). While collective exercise of rights may be convenient for the issuer, collective exercise of rights could make it difficult for individual or small bondholders to protect their rights since they depend on decision of the meeting of bondholders and actions of the relevant agents. Therefore, we think that except for some mandatory rights, the terms of private corporate bond should allow a bondholder to exercise its right individually as much as possible. Under Decree 153/2020, change to the bond terms, approval of remedial plan regarding a breach by the bond issuer, or change to the bondholders’ representative require approval by the bondholders holding at least 65% of the outstanding bonds.
Under the Enterprise Law 2020, each company in Vietnam has an unique enterprise code (mã số doanh nghiệp) which distinguishes such company from another company. If one has the enterprise code of a company, it can easily obtain information about its latest names and addresses from the National Enterprise Information Portal. Accordingly, the goods labelling regulations should require the enterprise code of entity responsible for goods circulated in Vietnamese market (generally, “responsible entity”) to be a compulsory content of a goods label.
However, currently the goods labelling regulations do not require the enterprise code of the responsible entity to be included in the label of goods circulated in Vietnam. Instead, under Decree 43/2017 on goods labelling, the labels of goods circulated in Vietnamese market must contain the name and addresses of the responsible entity. This requirement could cause significant inconvenience for the responsible entity especially those in FMCG sector, when it changes its name or address.
Please download the pdf version of this post here.
In June 2023, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular 8/2023 to replace Circular 12/2014 which prescribes conditions for Vietnamese borrowers to borrow foreign loans (i.e., loans provided by an offshore lender) without a Government guarantee. Similar to Circular 12/2014, Circular 8/2023 has separate borrowing conditions for borrowers being credit institutions and borrowers being companies incorporated in Vietnam which are not credit institutions (Vietnamese Companies). In this post, we discuss the borrowing conditions for a Vietnamese Company. This post in written by Nguyen Hoang Duy and Nguyen Quang Vu.
The key highlights of Circular 8/2023 include:
offshore short-term loan borrowing will likely be more difficult since short-term loans are now only permitted for limited purposes (see 3.6) and (1) a Short-term Borrowing List needs to be prepared (see 5.1.2);
it is important to determine the purpose of an offshore loan to be for an investment project, a business and production plan, other projects, or for refinancing existing offshore loans; and
significant more paperwork is required for a medium- and long-term loans (see 5.1.1). The paperwork is mostly to evidence the purpose of the offshore loans.
The State Securities Commission (SSC) seems to take the view that public companies involving real estate business are subject to a 50% foreign ownership limit. However, we think that the SSC’s view is not consistent with the law and the foreign ownership limit in a public company involving real estate business should be 100% not 50%.
Under various international treaty (CPTPP or AFAS), Vietnam does not undertake to impose any foreign ownership limit to real estate business. Vietnam only limits the scope of operation of foreign-invested companies involving in real estate business (e.g. limitation on the ability to purchase houses for lease). This means that under these treaties, the foreign ownership limit in real estate business in general is 100%.
Article 139.1(a) of Decree 155/2020 provides that In the case of a public company operating in a business investment industry or trade for which an international treaty of which Vietnam is a member regulates foreign ownership, the provisions of such treaty apply. Accordingly, the foreign ownership limit in a public company involving in real estate business is 100%.
Similarly, since the Law on Real Estate Business 2014 imposes no foreign ownership limit to foreign invested enterprises, under the Law on Real Estate Business 2014, the foreign ownership limit in real estate busienss is 100%. Article 139.1(b) of Decree 155/2020 provides that in the case of a public company operating in a business investment industry or trade for which the relevant law regulates foreign ownership, then the provisions of such law apply. Accordingly, the foreign ownership limit in a public company involving in real estate business is 100%.
Please download the pdf version here.
In this post, we continue to discuss the Draft on Law on Real Estate Business, which was recently published for public comments. Part 1 of our discussion can be found Here.
This post is written by Nguyen Hoang Duong and Nguyen Quang Vu.
The Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) recently published a draft new land law (Draft) for collection of public comments before submitting the Draft to the National Assembly. Among other notable changes introduced by the Draft, the change to regulations on land rental payment method may attract attention. While this issue has been briefly covered by our comment of draft Land Law, below are our in-depth comments on the proposed change:
Under the Draft, the land users, who lease land from the Government, may select to pay land rental on either annual basis or lump-sum basis for the whole term if their lands are (i) lands for implementing projects of agricultural manufacturing, forestry, aquaculture, salt production, or (ii) lands for industrial zone, industrial cluster, export-processing zone, or hi-tech zone. With respect to other types of land, the only option available to the land user is payment of land rental on an annual basis. This regulation appears to be an unwelcome change given that under the current Land Law 2013, the land users are free to choose a suitable land rental payment method regardless of their types of land. In addition, this gives rise to several issues as discussed below.
Please download the pdf version here.
On 28 June 2023, the State Bank of Vietnam (SBV) issued Circular 6 (Circular 6/2023) to amend Circular 39/2016 on lending activities of credit institutions (CIs) and foreign bank branches (FBBs). Circular 6/2023 will take effect from 1 September 2023.
Circular 6/2023 introduces stricter control over lending activities conducted by CIs and FBBs. In this post, we will summarize some of the key points of Circular 6/2023.
Additional prohibited lending purposes
Circular 6 provides for certain new scenarios where CIs and FBBs are prohibited from providing loans. These cases include:
Please download the pdf version here.
In May 2023, Ministry of Construction and VCCI jointly held a Seminar on Draft of new Law on Real Estate Business (Draft Real Estate Business Law) to collect opinions and comments from enterprise community and experts. The Draft Real Estate Business Law appears to be the latest version having been published before it is submitted to the National Assembly. The new Law on Real Estate Business is scheduled to be adopted by the National Assembly in November 2023. We will try to highlight some notable changes introduced by the Draft Real Estate Business Law in this post and subsequent posts.
This post is written by Nguyen Hoang Duong and Nguyen Quang Vu.
In December 2020, we published a comprehensive Legal Guide To Merger Control In Vietnam (see here). In April 2023, the Government established the Vietnam Competition Commission (VCC). On this occation, we update our legal guide to reflect the establishment of the VCC. The updated guide can be downloaded here.
The guide is updated by Le Minh Thuy.
Please download the pdf version here.
In this post, we continue discussing the new changes introduced by the Real Estate Business Law 2023. Part 1 of our discussion can be found Here.
This post is written by Nguyen Hoang Duong and Nguyen Bich Ngọc, and edited by Nguyen Quang Vu.
1) New restriction when collecting deposit for purchase of off-plan real estate
Under the Real Estate Business Law 2023, real estate developers can only collect a deposit of up to 5% of sale price of the relevant real estate from purchasers when the residential houses, construction works are qualified to be put into trading. The law further requires a deposit agreement to expressly set out the sale price and area of the off-plan real estate. The off-plan real estate under the deposit agreement must satisfy conditions for sale under law. This indicates that collecting a deposit is considered putting relevant off-plan real estate into business.
The new requirements may pose significant difficulty for real estate developers with weak financial capacity when it comes to funding for pre-construction phase of their projects.